


r. ^ a* ^ ^ »Yfifeh*. ft, a* ^ J 



<fi * • ■ • • **r> 



**1P^ ^^^^ 




1 




1 4? * 



^v^*^ %^ T4 % ° 



,4\ 



P ^ 




k .Ati&X. y.-ast^ y^a&x /.^ 



■■■ o 



THE PROCESS, 

^33 



TESTIMONY AND OPENING ARGUMENT 



OF THE PROSECUTION, 



VOTE AND FINAL MINUTE, 

IN THE 



JUDICIAL TRIAL OF REV. W. C. McCDNE 



THE PEESBYTERY OF CINCINNATI 



FROM MARCH 5 TO MARCH 27, 1877. 




CINCINNATI: 
ROBERT CLARKE & CO., PRINTERS. 
1877. 



PREFATORY NOTE. 



The testimony and the argument in the following pages, in 
the judicial case of the Presbyterian Church versus Eev. W. 0. 
McCune, are published herewith at the earnest solicitation of 
many Presbyterians, and for the information of those who are 
interested in the study of the trial. It is only necessary here to 
mention the following things : 

1. That the testimony of the prosecution has never yet ap- 
peared — as the testimony for the defense has appeared — in any 
of the daily or weekly issues of the press, whether secular or re- 
ligious. 

2. That from the beginning to the end of the trial, the testi- 
mony for the prosecution remained intact, complete in its integ- 
rity, undamaged, and admitted by the defendant. It is to this 
day undisputed and unchallenged testimony, and it remains for 
every reader to judge whether it supports the specifications and 
the charges. 

3. The vote of the Presbytery upon each specification and 
upon both the charges is appended, under each, respectively. 

4. With the testimony thus uninvalidated and unbroken, the 
Presbytery, by a verdict of 29 to 8, declared the charges not sus- 
tained. 

5. Of the specifications, the Presbytery, at the same time, 
voted that the specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, under Charge 
I were not sustained by the proofs ; and that 6, 7, 8, and 10 were 
sustained. Also, under Charge II, the specification 2 was sus- 
tained, and specification 1 was not sustained. 

6. The final minute of the Presbytery, which is printed at the 
close of the argument, reports specification 10, under Charge I, 
as not sustained, whereas said specification was sustained by a vote 

(iii) 



[4] 

of 21 to 17, the law of the assembly being, that to "sustain in 
part" (9), and to " sustain " (12), are always to be counted to- 
gether. 

7. The Presbytery has decided that nothing taught or done 
by Mr. McCune, in any or all of the proofs of the case, was in 
contravention of his ordination vows, nor impaired the integrity 
of our system of doctrine, nor was disloyal to the Church, nor, 
if generally persisted in by our ministers, would subvert the 
Presbyterian denomination. 

8. The opening argument of the prosecution is given to the 
public at the request of many members of our Church, and 
others not members of the Church. 

THOMAS H. SKINNEE. 

Cincinnati, April 10, 1877. 



INTRODUCTION TO THE CHARGES. 



The Prosecuting Committee appointed by Presbytery, 
October 4, 1876, to take in hand and digest all the papers 
and documents relating to the case of the Pev. W. C. 
McCune, and prepare and conduct judicial process upon 
the same, herewith submit the charges. 

They deem it proper to state that they have given dili- 
gent attention to the labor assigned them. During the 
progress of their labors they have been deeply impressed 
with the gravity of the case, not alone in relation to the 
defendant, but also to the Presbytery itself and to the 
whole Presbyterian Church. In all cases of prosecution 
where " Common Fame" is the accuser, " the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America" is the " prosecu- 
tor," appearing in defense of its peace, purity, and unity 
by its " Committee of Prosecution'' acting in its name, and 
duly appointed by a court of legitimate jurisdiction, before 
whom the cause is to be originally tried. The Presbytery, 
jealous of its solemn attitude and function as a court of 
impartial adjudication, and detaching itself from the Com- 
mittee of Prosecution, thus refusing to assume the attri- 
butes of both prosecutor and judge in the premises, acts 
purely in a judicial character, and intrusts the whole con- 
duct and course of the case to the Committee of Prosecu- 
tion. Such is the provision of our General Rule XLII. 
Pule XLI was expressly originated in the year 1819 to be 

applied to references, complaint and appeal cases before the 

(5) 



[6] 

General Assembly (Digest, 214), and afterward* extended in 
1822 to cover all such cases in the lower judicatories as 
well, but not applicable to the institution of original pro- 
cess, as is shown by Rule XLII, enacted at the same time. 
By this Rule the Presbytery's Committee of Prosecution 
is, ipso facto, disfranchised from the bench of judgment by 
the Presbytery's own act, and thrown upon their own re- 
sponsibility for the management of the whole case. Under 
a sense of this responsibility thus laid upon them, the pros- 
ecution, as representing the Presbyterian Church, its con- 
stitution and laws, have felt that nothing should be done 
which the Presbyterian Church forbids, and all should be 
done that the Presbyterian Church requires, and also that, 
in the Spirit of the Gospel and the "Book," every advan- 
tage possible to be accorded to the defendant, consistent 
with justice, should be scrupulously ascertained and liber- 
ally bestowed, though going beyond what strict justice 
itself might claim. The offense charged, therefore, is pre- 
sented as one in its general nature, precisely as made by 
" General Rumor" itself, viz : Disloyalty to the Presbyte- 
rian Church, assuming a two-fold form, precisely as it as- 
sumed in the same " Rumor," the first relating to the doc- 
trines, principles, and views of the defendant, this being 
Charge I ; the second relating to the practical course of the 
defendant, this being Charge II. The description of the 
offense, moreover, has followed the language of the Pres- 
bytery's resolution of April 13, 1876, at Glendale, and the 
Title of the " Special Report" of Presbytery's Investigating 
Committee, accepted at Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876. 
The Specifications under the first charge are eleven in 
number; under the second charge, two. The Committee 
confined themselves entirely to a plain, direct, and unam- 
biguous statement of what the matter of fact in the papers 
and writings of the defendant will, in their judgment, jus- 



[7] 

tify. Still further, in order to give the defendant the ut- 
most possible advantage, as well as reduce the case and 
save the time of Presbytery, they have agreed to present 
the whole case of the prosecution in one paper at this time. 
To this end they have not restricted themselves to a simple 
reference to the objectionable language in the writings of 
the defendant, merely noting the page and sentences or 
paragraphs, but have furnished to the defendant the lan- 
guage itself, upon which they rely to support the several 
Specifications. They have given the name and page of the 
document, and the date as to year, month, and day, thus 
basing the several allegations upon the words of the de- 
fendant himself, these being again supported in part by 
other testimony, including the testimony of the Presby- 
tery's Committee of Investigation in their special report. 
If there is seeming redundancy, it is not because the evi- 
dence is exhausted, but only that no injustice may be done 
the defendant, and that Presbytery itself may be satisfied 
on this point, inasmuch as the testimony is the essence of 
all judicial cases. In the same interest of advantage to the 
defendant, the Committee have annexed to each Specifica- 
tion the several references to the Standards of the Church 
with which they deem the views and course of the defend- 
ant to be in conflict. Thus the defendant is furnished in 
advance with the whole testimony of the prosecution and 
all the law points in the case. Every advantage the Com- 
mittee could give has been given ; every right carefully 
guarded; every benefit readily accorded. The Specifica- 
tions are appended to support the Charges, the Proofs are 
added to support the Specifications, and the references to 
the Standards are subjoined to support the fact that the 
matter charged is an offense against the Presbyterian 
Church. The prosecution have no personal witnesses to 
cite. The evidence is entirely documentary. The testi- 



[8] 

mony and the law are given with the Charges. The Com- 
mittee desire to add that they have made application to the 
officers of the Linvvood and Mt. Lookout Church for access 
to their official records relating to the organization of the 
Church, but said officers have declined to accede to their 
request. 

With this explanation, and the statement that the Pros- 
ecuting Committee, after careful examination and deliber- 
ation, have come to a united judgment upon the presenta- 
tion of the charges, specifications, testimony, and law of the 
case, we respectfully submit the case to the Presbytery, 
and ask that it may be prosecuted according to the consti- 
tution of the Presbyterian Church. 

Thomas H. Skinner, 
E. D. Ledyard, 
S. J. Thompson, 

Committee of Prosecution. 

Cincinnati, December 18, 1876. 



JUDICIAL PROCESS. 



THE PEESBYTER1AN CHUECH 

versus 

THE REV. W. C. McCUNE, 

In the Court of the Presbytery op Cincinnati. 

Action brought by Common Fame, for Disloyalty to the Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Process instituted by Presbytery. 

Eev. Messrs. Thomas H. Skinner and E. D. Led yard and 
Elder S. J. Thompson, Prosecuting Committee. 



Offense : Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
CHAEGrE I. 

That the Eev. "W. C. McCune, being a minister of the 
Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and 
a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has, for years 
past, in contravention of his vows of loyalty to the distinc- 
tive faith and order of the Presbyterian Church, as also in 
opposition to the terms of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical 
Basis of union adopted, unanimously, by the Presbytery of 
Cincinnati (O. S.), at Avondale, September 8, 1869, Mr. 
McCune being present and voting for the same, and adopted 
by the whole Presbyterian* Church (0. S. and ~H. S.), and in 
joint convention November 12, 1869, declared as of binding 
force, openly proclaimed and persistently advocated doc- 
trines, principles, and views, not only at war with the stand- 
ards of the Presbyterian Church, but, if generally accepted, 

(9) 



[10] 



totally subversive of its constitution and of the very exist- 
ence of the Presbyterian denomination itself. 

This Charge rests upon the following specifications, to wit : 

SPECIFICATION I. 

Law of Organization. 

As to the Divine Laio of Organization for the Christian 
Church. — In this, that the divine Law of Organization for 
the Christian Church, in all time, is found in Romans xv. 
7, and not only forbids the existence of different evangelical 
denominations, as such, and any exclusion of Christian 
members or ministers in one denomination from full fellow- 
ship in another, but requires oneness of visible external 
organization, and immediate preparation for the reorgani- 
zation of the Presbyterian and whole Christian Church on 
a New Testament basis ; moreover, according to this law, 
the Church may cut off from its communion no one who is 
not, first of all, assumed, or proved, to be unregenerate. 

Proof 1.— Christian Unity, December 6, 1873, p. 5 : " We 
claim that many express precepts of the New Testament 
require organic Christian Union. 1. The precept in Ro- 
mans xv. 7 : ' Receive ye one another, even as Christ also 
received us to the glory of Grod/ requires ministers and 
members everywhere to receive all into church relations, 
whom they acknowledge Christ has received." Again, 
Christian Standard, November 13, 1875, p. 362 : " The great 
law of Christian Union is tersely and comprehensively ex- 
pressed, Romans xv. 7 : ' Wherefore receive ye one another, 
etc' " Again, repeated in the Standard, November 20, 
1875, p. 370. Again, Declaration from Linwood and Mt. 
Lookout, p. 4 : " We are also convinced that we find the 
law requiring visible Christian Union in Romans xv. 7, as 
well as in other scriptures : ' Wherefore receive ye one an- 
other as Christ also received us to the glory of God.' We 
likewise believe that the precept applies in the case of minis- 
ters, as well as in the case of members, and that no one who 
gives scriptural evidence that he is a minister of the Lord 



[11] 



Jesus Christ should be excluded from membership in any 
Presbytery, Conference, or association of ministers whatso- 
ever, by any denominational law." Again, Christian Unity, 
January 31, 1874, p. 4: "The New Testament forbids de- 
nominational divisions, and requires visible union." Again, 
Christian Unity, January 3, 1874, p. 4: " Christ prayed for 
such oneness as necessarily involves visible unity." Again, 
Christian Unity, November 15, 1873, p. 4: " God, in his 
providence, urgently calls upon all Christ's disciples to make 
immediate prayerful preparation for a united New Testament 
organization of the Church in every place." Again, Christian 
Unity, August 1, 1875, p. 5 : " And were it not for the ac- 
tive and prejudiced resistance made by sectarian managers 
and place-men, and for the effort always necessary and gen- 
erally painful, to pass from an old organization that is un- 
authorized and extra-scriptural to a new one on a New Testa- 
ment basis, there is a great host of living Christian hearts, 
now separated by mere human sectarian walls, that would 
gladly unite to-morrow on the basis of the unity of the spirit 
with forbearance in love." 

Proof 2.— Christian Unity, March 14, 1874, p. 4 : " The 
Apostles received all Christians into the fellowship of the 
Church. They never excluded a disorderly person in order 
that he might organize another denomination." Again : " Re- 
port on Christian Union, read in the Presbyterian Synod of 
Cincinnati, October 22, 1870, and ordered to be printed," 
"W. C. McCune, Chairman of Committee, p. 14 : " It may 
indeed be needful that he should be made the subject of 
some brotherly forms of discipline, of admonition, of re- 
proof, or even of temporary suspension, but he may not be 
finally excommunicated and forced to establish another denom- 
ination of his own, in order to attain membership in the visible 
Church of "Christ." Again, p. 12 : " Paul gave directions to 
exclude incestuous persons from the communion of the 
Church, but not with the view to the establishment of another 
denomination in which incest should be ruleable and respect- 
able" Again, Organic Union, p. 74: " He (Dr. P.) assumes 
that the ' brother ' in the text (2d Thess. iii. 6), was a Chris- ; 
tian brother, and that as a Christian brother he was to be 



[12] 



excluded from the Church; and the inference is that it can 
not be the law of the Church that the mere evidence that a 
man is a Christian brother does not entitle him to member- 
ship." Again, p. 74: "It would be necessary to show that 
the Apostles in some case had actually excommunicated a man 
who gave evidence that he was a true believer. But there is 
no such case on record. There is no proof whatever that 
the 6 brother ? mentioned in the precept above was a brother 
Christian." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 45 (2), 307 (6), 674 (iii, 1, 2), 675 
(5, 6), 676 (7), 677 (10), 678; 44 (ii, v, vi), 48 (i), 49 (vi), 50 
(6), 54 (11, 12), 57 (14), 63 (2), 92 (ii, 2), 91 (2), 120 (1), 147 
(5), 169 (8, c), 191 (iv), 620 (7). Also the whole Form of 
Government and Book of Discipline in their structure, cap- 
tions, and provisions, and all the decisions of the approved 
Digest bearing upon the reception or exclusion of ministers 
and members, particularly the references in Digest Index, 
p. 709, under u Excommunication ;" Title, Censure, and Di- 
gest, pp. 679 to 681, 704 (2), 85 (4), 73 ; also Princeton Re- 
view, January, 1876, p. 39. 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs didno£ sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Possiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
Ritchie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, 
Chester, Hawley, Jones, White, Morris, Hills, Sehwenck, 
Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
nett, Conn — 25. 

Sustained. — Lichsten stein, Long, Leonard, Babbitt, West, 
Wright, Winness, Gamble — 8. 

Sustained in part. — Kumler, Morey, Monfort, Evans — 4.] 

SPECIFICATION II. 

Anti- denomination. 

As to the essential sinfulness of the Presbyterian and all oth- 
er existing evangelical denominations as such. — In this, that 
the Presbyterian and all other evangelical denominations, as 



[13] 



such, i. e., in their peculiar character as distinct organiza- 
tions, apart from their common Christianity, and framed 
by denominational law to maintain and enforce their pecu- 
liar and distinctive creed as to doctrine and polity, are es- 
sentially sinful, are not churches, and have no scriptural 
right to exist. 

Proof 1. — Organic Union, p. 123 : " A denomination has 
no right to exist as a distinct organization, unless she is or- 
ganized according to the divine law of organization. 77 Again, 
Christian Unity, November 15, 1873, p. 4 : " We shall aim to 
show the anti-scriptural, wasteful, and enfeebling nature of 
existing denominational divisions, and to persuade Chris- 
tians, eventually, to organize, instead, but one church in one 
place." Again, Christian Unity, January 31, 1874, p. 8 : " De- 
nominational divisions in the church are wholly destitute of 
scriptural authority" Page 4 : " We have a clear, profound 
conviction that denominational divisions are unscriptural." 

Proof 2. — Cincinnati Commercial, February 11, 1876 : " I 
am opposed to denominationalism , or, to use a more expres- 
sive term, I am utterly opposed to all sectarianism, and I 
am just as much opposed to Presbyterian sectarianism as 
any other. Denominational Christian Churches are char- 
acterized by two things : first, their Christianity ; secondly, 
their sectarianism. On account of the first, I maintain they 
have a right to exist. The second thing, their sectarianism, 
is sin fid, wiser iptural, and has no right to exist." "Secta- 
rianism is a hurtful excrescence." 

Proof 3.— Commercial, February 11, 1876: "Dr. Skin- 
ner's second statement, that I claim I am opposed 6 only to 
supernumerary churches, in small towns or villages' is 
wholly untrue. I never said so. I am opposed to dividing 
of the Church into denominations out of which they grow." 
"I condemn sectarianism as essentially sinful and do not 
rejoice in it." " I do not believe that the Presbyterian 
Churches are Christian Union organizations. I believe 
they ought to be. I believe that as the Presbyterian Church 
receives all, as members, whom she believes Christ receives, 
so she should receive all as ministers, whom she believes 



[14] 



Christ receives. I believe that any minister, on applica- 
tion, should be received as a member of Presbytery, and 
who gives to Presbytery satisfactory scriptural evidence 
that Christ has received him, as His minister. The Presby- 
terian Church requires more than this." Again, Declaration, 
p. 4 : " We further maintain that, if Christians, living in 
any place, unite themselves together as a Church of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, receiving all as ministers, and as members, 
who give scriptural evidence that Christ has received them, 
such a Church is not a sect, in any sense whatever. A sect 
is an organization that cuts off, or excludes, from its fellow- 
ship those whom Christ confessedly receives. But the 
Church that welcomes all who give credible evidence that 
they belong to Christ, can not be a sect." 

Proof 4.— Christian Standard, February 26, 1876, p. 66 : 
" The leading Protestant denominations all have their pecu- 
liarities, which they hold not merely as individual belief, 
but which they profess to enforce as denominational law." 
. *. . " It is evident that the sin of sectarianism does not 
consist in the open, candid statement of what their secta- 
rian organic laws are, but on the actual enactment and en- 
forcement of these sectarian laws." " It frequently occurs 
that churches that frankly avow their peculiarities, in a 
creed, in the lapse of time cease to enforce them. The Pres- 
byterian Church has ceased to enforce Infant Baptism." 
Again, Christian Standard, March 4, 1876, p. 74: "The 
mischief does not lie in the open, manly publication of sec- 
tarian terms of fellowship, but in the actual holding and 
enforcing of them!'' 

Prooe 5.— Commercial, May 10, 1876: "It follows that 
the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist denominations, 
taken as a whole, do not either of them constitute a Church, 
using the word in the singular number, but it would be 
heartily conceded that the congregations of believers of 
which these denominations are composed, is, each one, a 
Church." Again, Christian Standard, September 18, 1875, 
p. 298: "It is well known that I publicly maintain that 
the Presbyterian Church does not occupy Christian Union 
ground, and that I seek to persuade her to occupy that 



[15] 



ground, just as I would the Disciples." Again, Gazette, 
January 12, 1876 : " I regard her (the Presbyterian Church) 
with no popish veneration. I do not consider her standards 
infallible. I deem it lawful to propose revision. ... I 
regard it as perfectly ruleable in the Presbyterian Church 
to propose changes in her standards in the interest of Chris- 
tian Union, to memorialize the General Assembly to this end, 
and to seek to imbue the whole denomination with the doc- 
trines of the New Testament on the subject of Christian 
Union." 

Proof 6. — Organic Union, p. 11 : " The Romish Church 
teaches all the children in her schools that the true Church 
is organically one, and that she is one while the Protestant 
Church is divided; she is therefore the true church. And 
we too admit that the true Church should be thus united." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 44 (ii, v, vi), 45 (2), 50 (b), 54 (11, 
12), 57 (14), 91 (2), 120 (i), 147 (5), 191 (iv), 620 (7), 623 
(8, 4). 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
Ritchie, Camp, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, 
Chester, Hawley, Morey, "White, Morris, Hills, Evans, 
Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Mansfield, Ken- 
nett, Coun — 24. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, "West — 4. 

Sustained in part. — Babbitt, Dudley, "Wright, Winness, 
Jones, Monfort, Gamble, Dallas — 8.] 

SPECIFICATION III. 

Creeds. 

As to the sinf ulness of Framing and Requiring Assent to 
Human Creeds. — In this, that everything distinctive in 
creeds should be given up, or struck oat, and. no human in- 
ference or deduction from divine truth be allowed ; that the 
Bible itself is an all-sufficient and the only proper creed for 



[16] 



all time; that the construction of an extended creed, be- 
yond the Scripture statement of a few leading doctrines, the 
most, otherwise discordant, will accept, is a usurpation of 
the divine prerogative, and the enforcement of distinctive 
tenets upon the official ministry an oppression of the con- 
science. 

Proof 1. — Organic Union, pp. 48, 49: "As they (the 

Apostles) demanded of applicants for membership a saving 
faith in Christ, which necessarily included all other saving 
graces, and thereby excluded all fatal heresies, when this de- 
mand was actually met, so this demand, made now and met 
now, will now in like manner exclude all fatal heresy. If a 
brief and simple creed, embracing a few of the leading fun- 
damental doctrines of the Bible, was sufficient then, so it is 
sufficient now. If it most wisely guarded against perversions 
of Scripture then, so it will now. If it most effectually ex- 
cluded heresy then, so it will now. It is evident that an ar- 
gument to prove the necessity for enlarging the creed, based 
on present perversions of Scripture, and the prevalence of 
error, is as weak as it is popish." Again, same page : 
" Unblushing assumption of prerogative in the Protestant 
Church." Again, p. 115 : " Could not the Church of Rome 
be built on this foundation? "Wherein does this principle 
differ from the rotten basis on w T hich she stands ?" Again, 
pp. 87, 38 : " If he (Dr. P.) meant simply to affirm that the 
whole Church of the living God, including all, of every name, 
who give satisfactory scriptural evidence that they are born 
of the Spirit and all true disciples of Christ, would have the 
right to put in her creed her interpretation of every truth of 
the Bible, concerning which they could unanimously agree, 
this creed would be a Catholic creed, neither would it op- 
press any Christian's conscience, nor exclude any true disciple 
from the Church, or from the Lord's table." Again, p. 47 : 
"JSTo true Protestant needs to be convinced of the falsity of 
every argument which is framed to prove that it has become 
necessary to enlarge the creed of the primitive church." 
Again, Cincinnati Gazette, January 12, 1876 : " Christian 
Union does not require the surrender of any peculiarities, 



[17] 



either of faith or practice. It simply requires that mere 
peculiarities be not enforced, contrary to conscience, as a matter 
of sectarian law." Again, Christian Unity, Jan. 17, 1874 : 
" Did the Apostolic Church demand assent to the Presbyte- 
rian Confession of Faith % And if he admits it did not, 
should we follow apostolic example?" Again, Christian 
Standard, September 18, 1875 : " I maintain that no creed, 
written or unwritten, should contain anything that is human. 
It should not contain any human inference or deduction of 
any kind whatever. Everything human in creeds 1 oppose." 
Again, Christian Standard, February 26, 1876, p. 66 : " We 
affirm that the Bible is the only proper creed, and that it is 
a sufficient creed for every church on earth." Again, Chris- 
tian Standard, August 7, 1875, p. 252 : " We affirm most 
heartily and positively that it (the Bible) is a sufficient 
creed, and the only true creed, for all true Christians, and all 
ministers, and all churches." Again, Christian Standard, 
March 4, 1876, p. 74 : " A human creed, in whole or in part, 
is always objectionable ; but is a purely gospel creed ob- 
jectionable ? A sectarian creed is always mischievous and 
sinful, but is a genuine New Testament creed to be con- 
demned ?" 

Proof 2. — " Address to all the Christian Ministers and 
Churches in North America, with Basis of Union," Octo- 
ber, 1874, Cincinnati, Booms of Young Men's Christian 
Association, p. 5 : " In regard to the ordination and exam- 
ination of ministers, the Basis teaches that no other tests 
should be applied than the common faith which Christians 
have held everywhere, and in all ages of the world, as a 
common heritage." Again, p. 6: " As to all vexed ques- 
tions at issue among evangelical believers, concerning man's 
relation to God's sovereignty, forms of making religious profes- 
sion, modes of worship, subjects of baptism, methods of organi- 
zation, kinds and functions of church officers, we believe they 
should all be committed to the broad and free domain of 
Christian liberty, until God shall, in his infinite goodness, 
vouchsafe to his church greater light." Signed by Mr. Mc- 
Cune and others. Again, p. 17 : " Neither do we require 
any assent to any denominational peculiarity, as a condition 



[18] 



of fellowship." Again, "Address to all," etc., p. 17: 
" We distinctly disclaim all intention to require an assent 
to any human modification of these Scriptures, or any human 
inferences therefrom, and we affirm it to be our purpose only 
to require an assent to God's own truth, expressed in God's 
own language, as it has been commonly received by all 
Christ's ministers and people in all times, and in all places." 
Again, Linwood and Mt. Lookout Basis, etc., " Preliminary 
Statements," November, 1875, p. 5 : <{ ¥e deem it wise and 
practicable, and at the same time both unsectarian and 
evangelical, to select the truths held in common by evangeli- 
cal ministers, as proper tests of soundness in the faith on the 
part of those who ask our recognition as ministers of Christ. 
The Basis of the world's evangelical alliance is a statement of 
this common faith" Again, p. 9 : "The Evangelical Minis- 
terial Association of Cincinnati has also, on two occasions, 
made a statement of this common faith of all evangelical 
ministers." 

Proof 3.— Christian Unity, March 28, 1876 : " Mr. Frost's 
proposition. (1.) Agree to adopt and practice whatever we 
mutually agree that the Bible teaches. (2.) Agree to give up 
and strike out of our respective creeds whatever causes di- 
vision, and which we ourselves do not regard as essential to the 
truth. (3.) Agree to give up and strike out of our respec- 
tive creeds whatever causes divisions among us, and for which 
we can not give a plain precept or example in the Word of 
God." Answer by Mr. McCune. " The first and third of 
these principles seem to us to be sound and good, as far as 
they go. But we would very much prefer to state the 
third principle thus, Agree to strike out of our creeds, as a 
matter of law, everything which those whom we acknowledge as 
fellow Christians can not see to be law in Scripture. That 
would meet the case and secure union. To the second 
principle we object most decidedly" — " on account of its 
vagueness." Again, Christian Unity, Aug. 1, 1875, p. 1, 
" The plan of organization of the Texas Convention, April 
30, 1875, at Somerville." The third principle, (3.) " That 
churches of Christ ought to have no authoritative creed or dis- 
cipline but the Holy Scriptures." Note by the Rev. Mr. 



[19] 



Melish, co-editor with Mr. McCune. "This plan of organ- 
ization, it will be noted, is very substantially like our own, 
etc. We therefore claim these good brethren to be one with 
us, genuine lovers of organic Christian unity, on the right 
platform," etc., etc. 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 45 (2), pp. 54-57, 81-86, 147 (5), 
191 (iv), 304 (8), Baird's Digest, 638, Conf. of Faith, chap, 
i, sec. vi. 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain this specification. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Eossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, Rit- 
chie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, 
James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, White, Monfort, Morris, 
Hills, Evans, Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, 
Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 28. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West, Wright, Potter. 
— 5. 

Sustained in fart. — Leonard, Babbitt, Winness, Jones, 
Gamble — 5.] 

SPECIFICATION IV. 

Vows of Ordination. 

As to Ordination Vows. — In this, that Presbyterian min- 
isters, under the obligation of solemn ordination vows, 
may change the old views of doctrine and polity they ap- 
proved and pledged themselves to maintain, at the time of 
their ordination, and preach, publish, and advocate their 
new views, claiming, meanwhile, that those who object to 
this should themselves leave the Presbytery, while the ad- 
vocates of the new views may remain in the body for the 
sake of good standing, without renouncing their departures 
from the standards. 

Pkoof 1. — Christian Standard, September 18, 1875 : " The 
Presbyterian Church only asks men at their ordination, 
what their present views are, and never pledges them not 
to change their views." 



[20] 



Proof 2.— Gazette, August 27, 1875 : " You (Dr. Monfort) 
seem to suggest that, inasmuch as I am an advocate of or- 
ganic Christian Union, there is something dishonorable, if 
not sinful, in my continuance as a member of the Presbytery 
of Cincinnati. If the advocacy of Union is an ' iniquity 
to be punished by the judges,' we ' are at a loss to under- 
stand'' what right you have to be a member of the Pres- 
bytery of Cincinnati !" " You could possibly remedy the 
matter, in so far as you are personally concerned (and I 
trust that you are the only one that feels aggrieved), by ask- 
ing yourself for a letter of dismissal, and by uniting with 
some body of ministers in which there are no Christian 
Union men, if any such body can now be found." " I wish 
my name to remain ou the roll of the Presbytery, as an in- 
dorsement of my standing as a Christian minister." " It is 
useless to make any intimations to me on this subject. I 
propose that my name shall stand on the roll of Pres- 
bytery as long as I remain in Cincinnati or vicinity V 

Proof 3. — Organic Union, p. 136 : " To ask a man not to 
advocate what he conscientiously believes to be God's truth, 
. is to ask him to obey men rather than God." 

Proof 4. — Commercial, October 17, 1876 : " It is proposed 
that I shall give assurance in writing that I will not further 
the principles which I am clearly convinced are the truth of 
God. My inexpressibly solemn obligation, as a minister of 
Christ, to preach His truth as I believe it in my heart, I am 
to be required to renounce. Presbytery is to be placed in 
God's stead over me. She is to be 6 seated in the Temple 
of God,' and to show herself that she is God over my con- 
science." 

Proof 5. — Organic Union, p. 150 : " The writer of these 
pages can never consent to preach the gospel, in any de- 
nomination, upon condition that he shall not advocate cer- 
tain principles, which he believes in his heart are the truths 
of the gospel. He believes that the great principles upon 
which the Organic Union of the Church must be consum- 
mated, are just as important as the salvation of precious 
souls — as the conversion of the world, for the world will 
never believe till the Chruch is one." 



[21] 



Pkoof 6. — Mr. McCune's statement of Christian Union 
principles, given to Presbytery's Committee of Investiga- 
tion, and read in Presbytery at Mount Auburn, September 
13, 1876. Collateral of the Committee's Eeport, No. 4, p. 6 : 
" I have publicly advocated, and propose to advocate, the fol- 
lowing principles on the subject of Christian Union. I 
make verbatim extracts from a report read in the Synod of 
Cincinnati in 1870, which was published at that time by the 
authority of the Synod and widely circulated." See Re- 
port, from p. 7 to p. 12, inclusive, and inserted by Mr. Mc- 
Cune in the Collateral above specified ; especially this : 
" We speak not of voluntary usage, of prevailing customs, 
or of mere recommendations, for these things never produce 
denominational divisions. We speak of organic enactments, 
of denominational laws; for it is these and these only, that 
divide the Church. These are the apples of discord and the 
wedges of division in the Christian Church. It is these pe- 
culiar, distinctive denominational laivs which give visible form 
and sharp outline, and repella-nt and perpetuating power to 
divisions." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 399 (vii, 2, 3), 410, 411, (2, 3, 6); 
45 (2), 48 (2), 49 (vi), 54 (11, 12), 55 (13 b), 57 (14), 191 (iv), 
144 (8), 218 (v), 231 (2,3); Baird's Digest, 662 (88); 
Moore's Digest, 540 (v) ; 541 (vi) ; 548 48 (ii), 223 ; Baird's 
Digest, 649 (72), 651 (3, 4) ; Moore's Digest, 221, 222 ; 
Baird's Digest, 664. 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain this specification. The vote was : 

Not Sustained. — Caton, Possiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Max- 
well, Chidlaw, James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, Jones, 
White, Monfort, Potter, Morris, Hill, Evans, Schwenk, 
Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
nett, Conn — 31. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West, Gamble — 4. 

Sustained in part, — Leonard, Ritchie, Winness — 3.] 



[22] 



SPECIFICATION V. 

Plurality of Official Membership. 

As to Plurality of Official Membership. — In this, that Pres- 
byterian and other evangelical ministers may belong at the 
same time to two different ecclesiastical denominations, 
antagonistic in their principles, and subscribe allegiance to 
both. 

Proof 1. — Commercial, February 11, 1876 : " I do not be- 
lieve that the Presbyterian Churches are Christian Union 
organizations. I believe they ought to be." 

Proof 2. — " Address to all Christian ministers and 
Churches in North America, with a Basis of Union, p. 6 : 
* In this Basis, which we submit to your serious and prayer- 
ful attention, we have suggested what we believe must be 
the initial step, viz : to receive every Christian into our fel- 
lowship, and every Christian minister who teaches the common 
faith of the gospel ; trusting in Divine Providence, that, if 
we take this step, God will vouchsafe us light and wisdom 
for the next.' 4 Brethren, this is an attempt to induce 
Christians to unite on the basis of their agreements, as the 
experience of centuries has shown that they can not unite 
on their disagreements.' 6 We ask every minister, who ap- 
proves it, to say so, and to accept a cordial invitation to at- 
tend the Christan Union Convention which is to meet at 
Suffolk, Virginia, on the first Wednesday of May, 1875, at 
10 o'clock, a. m. Signed by W. C. McCune and others. 
Again, 4 Address,' etc., p. 19 : ' All ministers and Churches 
adopting this Basis will be recognized and enrolled as Union 
Christian ministers and Churches, to be known as the ' Union 
Christian Churches of America.' " 

Proof 3. — "Address," etc., p. 19 : "Any minister who has 
adopted this Basis, but does not deem it expedient to sever ex- 
isting denominational relations, shall, at his own request, be en- 
rolled, notwithstanding . Churches desiring to take action 
concerning this Basis are requested to give public notice of 
a meeting for that purpose. When the Church is con- 



[23] 



vened, it is suggested that the Basis be read, and that then 
a vote be taken on the two following questions : First, 6 Do 
you approve the Union Christian Basis?' Second, 'Da 
you ado^t the Union Christian Basis?' All Churches, 
either approving or adopting this Basis, are requested to 
send one or more delegates to attend a general Convention 
of the Union Christian Churches, at Suffolk, Va., on the 
first Wednesday of May, 1875. All ministers adopting this 
Basis, including those who may not have severed heretofore ex- 
isting denominational relations, are also invited to attend the 
Convention, to take counsel concerning the promotion of 
Christian Union, and the conversion of the world." 
"Unanimously adopted and signed, October' 24, 1874, at 
the Rooms of the Young Men's Christian Association, 
Cincinnati, Ohio." Signed by W. C. McCune, Thomas J. 
Melish, and others. Again, Christian Unity, August 1, 
1875, p. 2 : " We do not ask either ministers or Churches to 
change their denominational relations. Therefore, we are not 
laboring to build up a new sect." Editorial of Thomas J. 
Melish, co-editor with Mr. McCune of " The Christian 
Unity." 

Pkoof 4. — " Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
Church of Linwood and Mount Lookout," Hamilton Co., 
Ohio, Cincinnati, November, 1875, including " Declaration,' 7 
pp. 3-6 ; Preliminary Statements, pp. 6-11 ; " Basis of Fel- 
lowship," and " Regulations of Expediency," pp. 11-16. 
Page 5 : " We, giving to each other evidence that we are 
Christ's disciples, propose, by the help of God, to organize a 
6 Union Christian Church,' in accordance with the precepts 
and examples of the E"ew Testament." Page 6 : " We will, 
on scriptural evidence, cordially receive all Christians inta 
the fellowship of this Church." " We w T ill receive, as min- 
isters, all who give us scriptural evidence that they are in 
fact ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ." " Neither do we 
deem it practicable to inquire of a candidate for the ministry 
concerning the sense in which he receives every verse of 
scripture from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it." 
Page 10 : " Having invited Christian ministers, of good re- 
pute for soundness in the faith, to aid us and counsel with us,. 



[24] 



we deem it sufficient to select from the Bible, for the occa- 
sion, the great truths of the gospel concerning which evan- 
gelical ministers are agreed, both as to their fundamental 
character and as to their true sense, or that we should use 
some clear and competent statement of the common faith 
already prayerfully and deliberately made, such as the Basis 
of the World's Evangelical Alliance, as the subject of con- 
ference with any whom toe are about to send out into the world 
to preach the everlasting gospel." Page 14: "We deem it 
-expedient to elect certain of our number for one or more 
years, to whom we will especially commit the spiritual 
oversight of this Church, in conjunction with the pastor 
(the Rev. Mr. McCune)." "A request of a majority of the 
members voting, at a meeting duly called for that purpose, 
that an officer shall resign, must be granted." Basis and 
Regulations, " unanimously adopted at Linwood, Novem- 
ber 7, and Mt. Lookout, November 8, 1875." 

Proof 5. — Gazette, January 12, 1876: "Dr. Skinner 
seems to make a painfully elaborate effort to prove, by some 
rather confusing quotations, that the Church of Linwood 
and Mt. Lookout is responsible for the publication of the 
Declaration and Preliminary Statements which accompany 
the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian Church of 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout. Certainly; who ever thought 
otherwise? His ulterior object seems to be to make me also 
responsible. I will gladly relieve him of any further trouble 
in this direction. I hereby declare that I heartily approve 
of the Declaration and Preliminary Statements accompa- 
nying the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, and respectfully 
commend them to the attention of the Christian public." 

Proof 6.— Christian Unity, August 1, 1875 : " The Chris- 
tian Unity begins (again) its career with fixed purposes and 
aims. It will earnestly contend that, in examining candi- 
dates for the ministry, all tests shall be laid aside except such 
as develop the faith common to the evangelical family of 
Christians, etc. Again, Prospectus of the Christian Unity 
("monthly"), date near August, 1875: "When earnest 
practical men propose to obey the Christian Union precepts 



[25] 



of the New Testament, by organizing an actual visible oneness, 
Mr. Thrall joins those who are themselves sectarian and are 
not ashamed to be in the cry : O, you Christian union men 
are about to establish a new sect, etc." Again, Christian 
Unity, August 1, 1875, p. 2: ""We propose to hold an an- 
nual convention, in different parts of the United States in 
the month of May, to which we invite all ministers who 
approve our Basis to come, and all Churches who accept it 
to send delegates." Again, Christian Unity, August 1, 1875, 
p. 5 : " If the union movement is to prove a sucess, we must 
organize, band ourselves together as ministers and Churches, 
advocating with freedom and earnestness our peculiar princi- 
ples. That was meant in New York in October, 1873, at 
Cincinnati in October, 1874, and at Suffolk in 1875. s Let 
the work of organization go on." By Eev. W. B. Wellons, 
co-editor with Mr. McCuue. Again, Christian Unity, Au- 
gust 1, 1875, p. 1. The plan of the Texas Convention, at 
Somerville, April 30, 1875. The third of its principles is: 
(3.) " That Churches of Christ ought to have no authorita- 
tive creed or discipline bat the Holy Scriptures." "This 
plan of organization it will be noted is very substantially 
like our own, etc. We, therefore, claim these good brethren 
to be one with us, genuine lovers of organic Christian unity 
on the right platform, etc." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 494 (e), 625 (ni, 2, 3, 4), 626 (6), 
620 (7), 169 (8). 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain the specification. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Oortelyou, Leonard, Cushman, 
Ritchie, Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, 
Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, Winness, Chester, Hawley, 
Morey, Jones, White, Monfort, Potter, Morris, Evans, 
Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mans- 
field, Kennett, Conn — 32. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West, Gamble — 4. 

Sustained in part. — Rossiter, Hills — 2.] 



[26] 



SPECIFICATION VI. 

Terms of Ministerial Fellowship. 

As to the Terms of Ministerial Fellowship. — In this, that 
no Presbytery has a right by any terms of fellowship to ex- 
clude from its ecclesiastical brotherhood, or constituent 
official membership, any evangelical minister of any other 
evangelical denomination, but that such minister is, ipso 
facto, entitled to a pastorate in any Presbyterian Church, 
to a seat in any Presbytery in Christendom, to the exercise 
of jurisdiction and control in our highest courts, eligible to 
the chair of instruction in Presbyterian colleges and semi- 
naries, and should be protected in the right of private judg- 
ment and free speech. 

Proof 1. — Declaration, p. 4: "No one who gives scriptural 
evidence that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ 
should be excluded from membership in any Presbytery, 
Conference, or association of ministers whatever, by any 
denominational law." Again, Gazette, August 27, 1875 : 
u I believe that any Christian minister has a right to mem- 
bership in any Conference, Association, or Presbytery in 
Christendom; and when the right is conceded, visible 
Christian Union can be attained, the Saviour's prayer an- 
swered, and the world saved." Again, Christian Unity, 
February 28, 1874, p. 4 : " If a Baptist sincerely and intelli- 
gently invites me into his pulpit as a minister of Christ, 
what right has he to vote me out of his Association ? If a 
Methodist invites me into his pulpit, w^hat consistency is 
there in voting me out of his Conference ? If a Presbyterian 
invites a Methodist, as an ambassador of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, to preach, in view of the infinite responsibilities of 
preaching, how can he refuse him ministerial fellowship in his 
Presbytery? Has Christ one standard for gospel ministers 
and Presbytery another?" t Again, Christian Unity, May 2, 
1874, p. 4 : "Dr. Monfort will say I believe Mr. Baumes is 
one of Christ's ministers, but I can never vote to fellowship 
him as a minister in this Presbytery. I admit he is Christ's 



[27] 

minister, but my conscience will not permit me to receive 
him as a minister in this Presbytery of ministers, organized 
according to Christ's authority. Beautiful consistency! 
Delightful fellowship !" 

Proof 2. — Mr. McCune in " The Church Union " of Sep- 
tember 12, 1874, p. 4: "Every minister who can give satis- 
factory evidence that he is one of Christ's ministers, should 
be received as such in every Presbytery, Conference, and 
association of ministers, as a member in good and regular 
standing, entitled to every privilege and eligible to every 'posi- 
tion which such member ship implies" 

Proof 3. — " Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout," November, 1875, p. 
13: "We will concede the right of private judgment and 
liberty of speech alike to all whom we do receive." Again, 
Organic Union, p. 136: " To ask a man not to advocate what 
he conscientiously believes to be God's own truth, is to ask 
him to obey men rather than God; and if he complies, he 
places erring sinful man on the throne of the Lord God om- 
nipotent." Christian Standard, April 22, 1876, p. 130: "I 
do claim the right of private judgment for all men absolutely, 
without exception." * * * "And further, any views a 
Christian entertains before he comes into the Church he has 
a right to hold and advocate after he comes in." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 399 (vii, 2, 3, 4), 410, 411, (2, 3, 
4), 44 (ii), 45 (2), 48 (ii), 49 (vi), 54 (11), 55 (1, 2), 57 (14), 
63 (2), 85"(4), 91 (2), 92 (ii, 2), 148 (8), 620 (7), 169 (8), 191 
(iv), 218 (v). Cases of Harker, Balch, Davis, Craighead, 
Barnes. 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain this specification. The vote was: 

Sustained. — Liehstenstein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Bab- 
bitt, Camp, Dudley, West, Wright, Maxwell, James, Win- 
ness, Jones, Monfort, Potter, Gamble, Conn — 17. 

Sustained in part. — Caton, Cortelyou, Cushman, Beecher, 
Kumler, Chidlaw, Chester, Morey, White, Morris, Evans, 
Schwenk, Johnston, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett 
—17. 

Not sustained. — Rossiter, Hawley, Hills, McGechan — 4.] 



[28] 



SPECIFICATION VII. 

Infant Church Membership Denied. 

As to the Constituent Membership of the New Testament 
Church. — In this, that the doctrine of infant church-mem- 
bership, grounded in the covenant of God with believers, 
in behalf of their offspring, is to be repudiated as a High- 
church theory, and that the true definition of the New 
Testament Church is that it consists of Christians only, 
believers only — not their children — an assembly or company 
of the regenerate alone. 

Proof 1.— Cincinnati Commercial, May 9, 1876: "The 
Presbyterian theory concerning a local Church is expressed 
in the Presbyterian Form of Government, Chapter II, Sec- 
tion 2 : ' The universal Church consists of all those persons 
in every nation, together with their children, who make a pro- 
fession of the holy religion of Christ and of submission to 
his laws.' In Section 4 we have the definition of a local 
or particular Church, as follows: 'A particular Church 
consists of a number of professing Christians, with their off- 
spring, voluntarily associated together for divine worship 
and godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures, and 
submitting to a certain form of government.' By 6 pro- 
fessing Christians ' in this definition, we presume, is meant 
those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, 
of repentance, of obedience, of being born again, of being 
new creatures in Christ Jesus; in a word, those who give 
evidence that they are Christians. But what is meant by 
the declaration that the 'offspring' of professing Christians 
are included in the Church is not so clear." * * " We 
believe it may be truly affirmed in fact, and in actual prac- 
tice, Presbyterians have not corrupted their churches by the 
admission to practical and efficient membership of a multi- 
tude of unbelieving, unconverted children, although such a 
theory may still linger among certain High-churchmen. 
Neither does the denial of membership to children conflict 



[29] 



with the doctrine of infant baptism, unless the sacramenta- 
rian dogma is admitted that baptism is the 6 door into the 
church/ which not one single text of Scripture affirms." 
Again, further on: "It is essential to a local Christian 
Church that it should be composed of Christians, so far as 
we are able to judge. Some would add, ' and also includes 
their children/ but this is not a part of the common faith." 
"A Christian Church is a Church of Christians, an assembly 
of believers, a company of regenerate souls" 

Proof 2.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876 : "I utterly 
repudiate the doctrine of infant church-membership" Again, 
Commercial, October 17, 1876 : " It has been said by those 
hostile tothis.great principle of Church Union, thus formu- 
lated, that it would exclude all baptised children from church- 
membership, who can not give satisfactory scriptural evidence 
that they are Christians. I unhesitatingly admit that this is 
true" 

Proof 3.— Christian Standard, February 26, 1876 : "The 
Presbyterian Church has ceased to enforce infant baptism." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 107 (ii, iv), 108 (2, a, b, d), 497, 
(vi), 671 (ix, i), 705. Conf. of Faith, xxv (ii), xxviii (iv). 
Larger Cat., Q. 62, 166. Shorter Catechism, Q. 95. Conf. 
of Faith, xxv (v), xxix (viii). 

'Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Bab- 
bitt, Camp, West, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Winness, 
Morey, White, Monfort, Potter, Hills, Gamble, Evans, Dal- 
las, Conn— 20. 

Sustained in part. — Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, Dud- 
ley, James, Hawley, Jones, Morris, Schwenk, Kennett — 10. 

Not sustained. — Caton, Maxwell, Chidlaw, Chester, Johns- 
ton, McGechan, Hyndman, Mansfield — 8.] 



[30] 



SPECIFICATION VIII. 

Admission of Unbaptised Persons. 

As to the Admission of Unbaptised Persons to Church Mem- 
bership. — In this, that unbaptised persons who deny, or 
scruple to admit, the necessary and perpetual obligation of 
water-baptism, as instituted by Christ, and the Ordinance of 
Baptism itself as a covenant sign and seal, and initiatory 
rite of entrance, for believing adults, into the Christian 
Church, may, notwithstanding, be admitted to church 
membership ; and that the one condition and requirement 
for entrance into the visible church is credible evidence of 
faith in Christ. 

Proof 1.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876 : " I would 

vote to receive any one who can give satisfactory evidence 
that he is a true Christian, and cheerfully grant him for- 
bearance as a fellow member in the church, although he has 
the views of the 'Friends' concerning water-baptism." Again, 
Commercial, October 17, 1876 : "It has been further stated 
that this principle (Christian Union) would admit a ' Friend' 
who could give satisfactory scriptural evidence that he was 
a Christian, but who could not conscientiously be baptised 
with water. I admit this also." 

Proof 2. — Report of Presbytery's Investigating Com- 
mittee; Collateral No. 4, pp. 15, 16 : "It has been said, in 
effect, that this doctrine can not be true, because, if it is, it 
would admit to church fellowship every member of the soci- 
eties, commonly called Quakers, who can give scriptural 
evidence that they have been savingly renewed by the 
Holy Ghost, and who make a credible profession of their 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and who at the same time 
deny the perpetual obligation of water -baptism. I cordially 
admit that members of the society of 4 Friends' can give 
this evidence, and that this great principle of church fel- 
lowship would concede to them all the fellowship they will 
accept." 

Proof 3.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876, p. 130 : 



[31] 



46 The 6 Quaker gun ' never alarmed me. And I have all 
the time maintained, just as I do now, that faith in Christ 
is the only New Testament requirement for membership" 
" In the exceptional case of a Christian who does not be- 
lieve in water-baptism at all, his faith in Christ entitles him 
to membership nevertheless." Again, Christian Standard, 
Nov. 13, 1875, p. 362 : " We maintain that faith in Christ 
is not merely the great condition, but the only condition." 

Again, Christian Standard, p. 362: "We add, that when 
we say that faith in Christ is the c one essential condition 
of entrance,' we mean that is the only condition." 

How contrary to the standards of our Church the above 
is, see Conf. of Faith, xxviii (i, ii). Larger Catechism, Q. 
165, 166, 176. Moore's Digest, 677 (10) (iv) ; 678, 129 (4) ; 
430 (5), 671 (ix, i), 674 (iii, 1, 2), 675 (5, 6), 676 (7). 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Sustained. — Lichsteustein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Camp, 
West, Wright, Beech er, Kumler, Chidlaw, James, Win- 
ness, Morey, White, Monfort, Potter, Hill, Gamble, Evans, 
Schwenk, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 23. 

Sustained in part. — Caton, Rossiter, Costelyou, Cushman, 
Babbitt, Dudley, Hawley, Jones, Morris, Dallas — 10. 

Not sustained. — Maxwell, Chester, Johnston, McGechan, 
Hyndman — 5.] 

SPECIFICATION IX. 

Saving Faith, What Is It? 

As to saving Faith in Christ and in the Word of God. — 
In this, that a person may have true and saving faith in 
Christ, and in God's Word, without believing either that 
Christ was true man or that the Word of God is truly in- 
fallible, and that true and saving faith, ipso facto, excludes 
all fatal heresy. 

Peoof 1. — Christian Unity, January 31, 1874, p. 4: "We 
believe that a man may be a Christian and not believe in the 
infallibility of the Bible, although ' almost ' all Christians 



[32] 



do believe the Bible to be infallible." " We believe that a 
man may be a Christian and not believe in the proper hu- 
manity of Christ, although 6 almost ' all Christians do be- 
lieve that Jesus was true man as well as God." 

Pkoof 2. — Organic Union, pp. 48, 49 : " As they, the 
Apostles, demanded of applicants for membership a saving 
faith in Christ, which necessarily included all other saving 
graces, and thereby excluded all fatal heresies, when this de- 
mand was actually met, so this demand, made now, and 
met now, will now in like manner exclude all fatal heresy" 
Again, Christian Unity, January 31, 1874: "Regenerate 
souls are all orthodox." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Conf. of Faith, chap, xiv (i, ii), chap, i (v, x), Shorter 
Catechism, Q. 86; Conf. of Faith, chap, viii (ii) ; Larger 
Catechism, Q. 36, 37, 39. 

Note. , 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain this specification. The vote was: 

Not sustained. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Max- 
well, Chidlaw, James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, Jones, 
White, Monfort, Morris, Hills, Evans, Johnston, McGechan, 
Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 29. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West — 3. 

Sustained in part. — Leonard, Ritchie, Winness, Potter, 
Gamble, Schwenk — 6.] 

SPECIFICATION X. 

Time of Advocating His Views. 

As to Persistance in Advocacy of the foregoing Doctrines, 
Principles, and Views. — In this, that for many years last 
past, the Rev. W. C. McCune, being a member of the Pres- 
bytery of Cincinnati, has regularly persisted, as lecturer, 
editor and pastor, to openly proclaim, publish and advocate, 
the aforesaid Christian Union doctrines, principles and 
views ; that since the appointment of the Presbytery's 
Committee of Investigation, he has continued to do the 
same in the public secular press, May 9, 1876, before the 

$ 



[33] 



Presbytery's Investigating Committee, June 26, 1876, and 
openly in Presbytery itself, October 4, 1876, and again in 
the secular press, October 17, 1876, subsequent to the ap- 
pointment of the Prosecuting Committee ; having an- 
nounced his purpose to pursue in future, as in the past, the 
the advocacy of the same principles of Christian Union. 

Proof. — Commercial, February 11, 1876 : " I have been 
perfectly candid and outspoken on this subject, for many 
years." " I do not believe the Presbyterian Churches are 
Christian Union organizations. I believe they ought to 
be." " If the Presbytery is not willing to allow me the 
liberty I have enjoyed unquestioned till Dr. Skinner made his 
attack, that is a matter for her to determine." Again, Com- 
mercial, February 15, 1876 : "I am advocating no sentiments, 
now, that I have not openly 'proclaimed for ten years back" 
Again, Commercial, May 9, 1876 : Article in full, read be- 
fore " The Evangelical Ministerial Association " of Cincin- 
nati. Again, Collateral !Nb. 4 of the Report of the Pres- 
bytery's Investigating Committee, June 26, 1876. Again, 
Commercial's Report of Presbytery's Proceedings, October 
5, 1876. Again, Commercial, Mr. McCune's Protest, Oc- 
tober 17, 1876. Again, Collateral No. 4, pp. 20, 21 : " I 
have written largely for the press, secular and religious, as 
an editor and contributor, in the last twenty years." Again, 
p. 6 : "I have publicly advocated and propose to advocate 
the following principles on the subject of Christian Union, 
etc." 

How contrary to the standards of our Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 48 (2), 54 (3), 55 (2), 304 (8), 57 
(14); Cases of Harker, Balch, Davis, Craighead, and 
Barnes. 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, Cushman, 
Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, West, Wright, Winness, Potter, 
Hill— 12. 



[34] 



Sustained in part.— Caton, Kossiter, Ritchie, Kumler, 
James, Hawley, Morey, Jones, White — 9. 

Not sustained.— Cortelyou, Beecher, Maxwell, Chidlaw, 
Chester, Monfort, Morris, Gamble, Evans, Schwenk, John- 
ston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, 
Conn— 17.] 

SPECIFICATION XI. 

Common Fame. 

As to the Common Fame in reference to the Whole Charge. — 
In this, that in addition to evidence involved in the forego- 
ing proofs, attached to the specifications, many newspapers 
have published articles concerning it, and the Presbytery 
of Cincinnati appointed a Committee of Investigation, April 
13, 1876, " to confer with Mr. McCune and examine into 
certain rumors touching his loyalty to the Presbyterian 
Church, and report to the Presbytery." Said Committee 
having so conferred and examined, and so reported at Mt. 
Auburn, September 13, 1876. 

Proof 1. — Herald and Presbyter, November 8, 1873; 
August 18, 1875; January 5, 1876; March 22, 1876. 
Christian Observer, December 22, 1875; January 19, 1876- 
January 26, 1876. Journal and Messenger, January 19, 
1876; January 26,1876. Christian Standard, many arti- 
cles from July 1875 to April, 1876. The Presbyterian 
Weekly, January 20, 1876 ; February 3, 1876. Christian 
Union, January 26, 1876. Cincinnati Gazette, August 27, 
1875 ; December 17, 1875 ; December 30, 1875 ; January 
11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 1876. Cincinnati Commercial, Feb ruary 
8, 9, 10, 11, 1876 ; February 5, 1876. Christian News, Feb- 
ruary, 1876. The Interior, February 10, 17, 26, 1876; 
March, 2, 16, 1876. Central Presbyterian, Febr uary y, 
1876, quoting the United Presbyterian, North-western 
Christian Advocate, February, 1876. New York Evan- 
gelist, March 9, 1876. The Presbyterian, January 19 and 
22, 1876 ; February 12, 1876. 

Proof 2.— Action of the Cincinnati Presbytery, at Glen- 
dale, April 13, 1876: "Whereas, for some time past, there 



[35] 



have been current rumors in regard to the views and course 
of Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of this Presbytery, in- 
volving the question of his loyalty to the order of the 
Presbyterian Church, and whereas, there seems to be some 
difference of opinion in regard to the subject; 

" Therefore, Resolved, that a Committee of three minis- 
ters and two ruling elders be appointed to have a full con- 
ference with Mr. McCune, and to inquire into all the facts 
bearing on the case and report to Presbytery at the next 
stated meeting." 

Peoof 3. — Special report of the Investigating Committee 
of Presbytery, published in Gazette, September 14, 1876 : 
Mr. McCune's scheme " denies, in effect, the right of every 
Evangelical Church to testify in favor of any peculiar doc- 
trine of its system, whether Arminian or Calvinistic, 
Baptist or Psedo-Baptist, Prelatical, Presbyterial, or Con- 
gregational. It allows no system of doctrines, no order of 
worship, no form of government, for it claims union upon 
what is common to Evangelical Churches, and these 
churches have in these respects nothing common. They 
may be said to agree in requiring faith and regeneration, as 
evidences of conversion, but they may differ widely, and do 
differ in regard to the nature of faith and the work of the 
Holy Ghost. The system makes a call to the ministry the 
only bond of ministerial fellowship in Organic Church 
Union, while Evangelical Churches differ on the question, 
what is a call to the ministry. It misinterprets the Savior's 
prayer that his people 'may be one' as fulfilled only by 
Organic Church Union. Mr. McCune, with his usual 
frankness, acknowledges that under his system, which re- 
quires that all churches should receive to membership all 
whom they believe Christ has received, he would admit 
orthodox Friends who deny the outward rites of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. This does not accord with our 
standards, which teach that baptism admits the party bap- 
tized into the visible church ; that it is a great sin to neglect 
or contemn this ordinance, and that this ordinance is in- 
tended to put a visible difference between those that belong 
to the church and the rest of the world. To us it seems 



[36] 



very plain, that a church without sacraments can not be re- 
garded as a part of the visible church, although true 
Christians in it may be part of the 'household of faith,' 
and may have fellowship with any branch of the visible 
church in prayer and in Christian work. Our assembly has 
decided that a person having scruples in regard to infant, 
baptism may nevertheless be received to membership in our 
Church ; but this forbearance can not be extended to any 
one in regard to his own baptism. There are many things 
that a disciple may learn in regard to duty after his recep- 
tion into the Church, but his own baptism is essential to his 
reception and the completion of it, if he has not been bap- 
tized in infancy. Any system of Christian Union which 
contravenes these principles and ignores the command of 
Christ, ' G-o teach all nations, baptizing them,' etc., if held 
and practiced by our office bearers, must be damaging to 
the purity and unity of the Church. If we understand Mr. 
McCune's paper, his views are also erroneous in regard to 
the relations of the baptized children of believing parents. 
He professes to believe in infant baptism, but he denies in- 
fant membership. The baptism of infants gives them, as 
he holds, no advantage over the unbaptized in their relation 
to the Church. He does not admit that they are even 
minors in the Commonwealth of Israel. This we regard 
as erroneous, and as bringing infant baptism into disrepute. 
According to this system, Orthodox Friends may be ad- 
mitted to the visible Church without baptism, while infants 
may be baptized and yet have no connection with the 
Church. Either view is a denial that baptism admits the 
party baptized into the visible Church, and any one who 
holds these views can not be expected to teach that it is a 
great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 499 (iv, v). See also Resolution 
of Presbytery of Glendale, appointing Committee of In- 
vestigation in the case of Mr. McCnne, April 13, 1876. 
Special Report of Investigating Committee, Mt. Auburn 
September 13, 1876. 



[37] 



Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sustain 
this specification. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Eossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, Rit- 
chie, Babbitt, Camp, Dad ley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, 
Maxwell, Chidlaw, James,Wmness, Chester, Hawley, Morey, 
Jones, White, Monfort, Morris, Gamble, Evans, Schwetik, 
Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
nett, Conn — 32. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, West, Potter 
—5. 

Sustained in part. — Hills — 1.] 



Note as to the Charge. 

Presbytery voted that none of the specifications which 
they did sustain, and none of the proofs under any of the 
specifications which they did not sustain, proved the truth 
of the matter of this Charge I. The vote was : 

Not sustained. — Caton, Cortelyou, Cushman, Ritchie, 
Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Ohid- 
law, James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, Jones, White, Mon- 
fort, Morris, Hills, Evans, Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, 
Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn. — 29. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, West, Wright, 
Winness, Potter, Gamble — 8. 



Offense: Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
CHAEGE II. 

That the Eev. W. C. McCune, being a minister of the 
Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and 
a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has, in contra- 
vention of his vows of loyalty to the distinctive government 
and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, and for the pub- 
licly avowed purpose of carrying into practical effect the 
doctrines, principles, and views specified under Charge I, 
been instrumental in advising, promoting, and encouraging 



[38] 



the new anti-denominational association of the " Union 
Christian Churches of America;" and, also, the new anti- 
denominational organization at Linwood and Mount Look- 
out, founded on these doctrines, principles, and views, his 
course herein being, if generally allowed, totally subversive 
of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and of its 
very existence as a distinctive denomination. 

This Charge rests upon the following specifications, 
to wit : 

SPECIFICATION I. 

General Association. 

As to the " Union Christian Churches of America." — In 
this, that the Rev. W. C. McCune, during certain years last 
past, has advocated and promoted the new anti-denomi- 
national association of independent " Union Christian 
Churches of America," by editing the "Christian Unity" 
in Cincinnati, by lecturing at large upon the subject of or- 
ganic uuion, by issuing an " Address to all the Christian 
ministers and churches in North America with a Basis of 
Union," by joining himself to this Association, calling upon 
all in sympathy with the new movement to adopt the basis, 
enroll themselves in the new association, send delegates to 
attend its annual conventions, and to advocate the peculiar 
principles of organic union. 

Proof 1. — The first editorial of the Christian Unity, pub- 
lished by Rev. W. C. McCune, Yol. I, No. 1, Cincinnati, 
November 8, 1873. Also, the three first editorials of the 
Christian Unity (resumed), published by its three joint ed- 
itors, Revs. W. B. Wellons, D. D., Thos. J. Melish, and W. 
C. McCune, at Suffolk, Va., and Cincinnati, Ohio, August 
1, 1875. 

Proof 2. — See, under Charge I, Specification V, the quo- 
tations in Proofs 2, 3, 6. 

Proof 3.— Christian Unity, December, 1873, p. 4: " The 
editor of this paper has for eighteen or twenty years pro- 
posed, that when it should seem evident that a fit time had 
come, he would devote himself to the advocacy of the vis- 



[39] 



ible unity of all true Christians. And he has always sup- 
posed that the most efficient instrumentalities for furthering 
Christian Union were public oral addresses and the press. 
And when he began, on the eighth of November, to issue 
this paper, he at the same time began to deliver lectures on 
the subject of Christian Unity. And now, by request, he 
will give a brief account of this part of his work. He has 
spoken at Butler, and Boston, and Newport, in Kentucky; 
and in Goshen and South Salem, and at Parrot's School- 
house, and Linden, and in Springfield and Urbana, at Buck 
Creek Church, and in New Richmond and Hillsboro', in 
Ohio ; and on last Saturday evening he spoke at Madison, 
near Middletown ; on Sabbath morning in the Presbyte- 
rian Church in Middletown, of which Rev. J. W. Clokey 
is pastor ; on Sabbath afternoon in a school-house near the 
village of Astoria; on Sabbath evening in Jacksonburg, in 
the church of which Rev. J. .Emerick is pastor ; and on 
Monday evening in the Baptist Church in Middletown, of 
which Rev. Mr. Booth is pastor. In all, he has spoken in 
eighteen different places." 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 304 (8), 44 (ii, v), 411 (3, 4, 6), 399 
(vii, 3), 57, 54 (3), 55 (12, 2 and 13 6), 93 (10), 95 (32, 1), 96. 
Baird's Digest, 626, 630, 631, 638, 648, 651, 686, 692. 
Moore's Digest, 122, 123. Baird's Digest, 704. 



Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
tain this specification. The vote was : 

J¥ot sustained. — Caton, Ritchie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, 
Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, Chester, Hawley, 
Morey, Jones, White, Monfort, Morris, Evans, Schwenk, 
Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
nett, Conn — 25. 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Babbitt, West, Winness, 
Potter— 6. 

Sustained in part. — Rossiter, Cortelyou, Leonard, Cush- 
man, Wright, Hill, Gamble — 7.] 



[40] 



SPECIFICATION II. 

Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 

As to the Organization of the Linwood and Mount Lookout 
Church. — In this, that the Eev. W. C. McCune actively co- 
operated in organizing, and desired to organize, and agreed 
with others to organize before and during November, 1875, 
for the avowed purpose of putting into practice his Organic 
Union principles, the new organization at Linwood and Mt. 
Lookout, preparing and commending to the public the 
Declaration and Preliminary Statements accompanying its 
Basis of Fellowship, thus promoting a new society which 
receives all Christians, whether dismissed or undismissed, 
and all evangelical ministers without exception, provides 
for the examination of candidates for the ministry, and for 
sending forth ministers to preach the gospel ; and has joined 
himself hereto, accepting a call and becoming its first pas- 
tor, being examined in theology and installed by an irre- 
sponsible, because undelegated, Council, and all this without 
leave of, or dismission from his Presbytery, and against 
advice to the contrary, and is, at present, pastor of said 
society. 

Proof 1. — As to the organization of Linwood and Mt. 
Lookout Church— Declaration, Basis, Candidates, Ministry 
—see, under Charge I, Specification V, the quotations in 
Proofs 2, 4, 5. 

Proof 2. — Joined himself to this Society. Commercial, 
February 8, 1876 : "I pass on to direct attention to the fact 
that Dr. Skinner's article abounds in naked assertions. He 
says : i The L. and Mt. L. Society has no ordained officers 
of any kind whatever,' etc. Does he deny that I am an 
officer, then, or does he deny my ordination ? Which?" 

Proof 3.— Time of Organization. Basis of Fellowship, 
p. 13. The distinctive title, "Union Christian Church at 
Linwood and Mount Lookout." Again, Collateral No. 2, 
of Presbytery's Investigating Committee's Report : " The 
Church was organized November 8 and 10, 1875." A^m 



[41] 



Herald and Presbyter, January 5, 1876 : " The Church was 
established or organized at Liuwood, November 7, and at 
Mt. Lookout November 8."" Again, The Presbyterian, 
February 26, 1876 : "This organization was completed No- 
vember 24, 1875. The Rev. Mr. McCune, now its pastor, was 
present at the meeting, but did not act officially. 6 He acted 
merely in the capacity of a Christian, desiring that such or- 
ganization might be effected, his position as a minister only 
giving him somewhat greater prominence in the matter than any 
other of the brethren.' Thus testifies one of the members of 
the Church." Again, Gazette, January 24, 1876: "I ac- 
cepted the invitation to preach at Linwood and Mount 
Lookout a year before the Union Church was organized, 
but it was mutually agreed that we should look toward the 
organization of a Union Church." Again, see, under 
Charge I, Specification V, the Proof 5. Again, Collateral 
No. 4, p. 3 : " I did approve of the movement, and after 
they had sent for me to preach for them, I counseled and 
co-operated with those who did organize this Church." 

Proof 4.— The Presbyterian, February 26, 1876 : " It has 
been charged that this Church, at its organization, received 
persons as members who were still members of other 
Churches and without letters. The fact is, that several of 
these persons were Baptists or Episcopalians. It was taken 
for granted that, in their case, to apply for letters would be 
useless. A few were Presbyterians. These persons should 
doubtless have pursued a more orderly course. Their com- 
ing with the rest on profession was an irregularity." * * 
" It has been charged that Mr. McCune was a member of 
the Presbytery of Cincinnati at the time of his installation 
over this Church, and that he had never asked the permis- 
sion of his Presbytery to form these new relations. Such 
is the fact, and here is another irregularity." 

Proof 5. — Accepting a call and being installed. Collat- 
eral No. 3, p. 2 : " In the second place, the Church further 
requested the Council to instal as its pastor the Rev. "W". C. 
McCune, who had been unanimously called to that office." 
Again, Collateral No. 4, pp. 1,2: " I have accepted the pas- 
torate of the Union Christian Church at Linwood and 



[42] 



Mount Lookout." Again, Collateral No. 4, p. 4 : " I have 
violated no Presbyterian law ivhatever in accepting my present 
pastorate, nor in anything I have done pertaining to the 
Union Christian Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. If 
there is any Presbyterian law requiring a minister to first 
gain the consent of his Presbytery before accepting a pas- 
torate outside of Presbyterian jurisdiction, I have no knowl- 
edge of it." Again, The Presbyterian, February 12, 1876 : 
"Has a Presbyterian minister a right to accept a pastorate 
outside Presbyterian jurisdiction? Any petty question 
about the formality of first asking leave may interest hair- 
splitting ecclesiastical lawyers, whose vocation it is to tithe 
mint, anise, and cummin. If Presbytery says the thing done 
is right, I will be content. If she says I should have first 
asked leave, 1 will plead ignorance and indifference." "And 
has he a right to advocate such Union, as I do? This 
might have been a fair question eight or ten years ago, in my 
case, but it is certainly too late now." 

Proof 6. — The Council, Examination, and Installation, 
Collateral No. 3, p. 1 : " The Council was composed of ten 
ministers, connected with four evangelical denominations. 
Letters of sympathy were received from several others, who 
for various reasons were unable to be present. Those in 
attendance were not delegated by any ecclesiastical bodies, but 
came simply as individuals upon the invitation of the 
Church, in accordance with a familiar Congregational 
usage. They consequently did not assume, in any sense, 
to represent their respective denominations, but acted en- 
tirely on their own responsibility as Christian men." Again, 
Gazette, December 17, 1875: "After a full examination as 
to his doctrinal soundness, and his motive in undertaking 
the pastoral office in connection with this Church, it was 

"Besolved, That we recognize in Eev. W. C, McCune an 
intelligent and thoughtful expositor of the Scriptures, and 
a reliable teacher on all vital points of doctrine," etc., etc. 

" The installation of Eev. W. C. McCune took place at 
half-past seven o'clock, in Linwood Hall, before a large 
number of citizens of Linwood, according to the programme 
adopted at the Council in the afternoon." 



[43] 



Proof 7. — Against advice. Letter of Rev. Thomas H. 
Skinner to Rev. W. C. McCune: 

Cincinnati, December 11, 1875. 

Rev. W. C. McCune : 

My dear Brother — Your invitation to me, to take part 
with others in the recognition of the " Union Christian 
Church,'' at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, reached me this 
morning. I must decline its acceptance. My reasons for 
so doing I can not now state in detail ; yet a few things I 
will say, which, I think, will sufficiently reveal my views. 
I am a Presbyterian minister, and owe my standing and 
protection to the Presbyterian organization. I received 
ordination, and have retained it, because I solemnly and 
publicly received and adopted the "Westminster Confession 
of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
Holy Scriptures, approved of the Government and Dis- 
cipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States, 
and promised to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the 
purity and peace of said Church. I do not think that by 
taking part in the services to which I am invited, I would 
evince either zeal or fidelity in maintaining the purity and 
peace or the unity of the Church. The principles involved 
in your organization would, if I understand them, be de- 
structive of the Presbyterian Church, were they successfully 
and generally carried out. Marching as I do under the 
banner of this Church, and sacredly pledged as I am to 
" study its peace, unity, and purity," I can not reconcile it 
with my conscience or sense of honor to put my imprimatur 
on your course while you are still a member of the Presby- 
tery. Our General Assembly has declared that " it is not 
the prerogative of a minister of the gospel to organize 
Churches without the previous action of some Presbytery 
directing or permitting it the exceptions made having no 
reference to such a case as that of the Linwood Church. 
(Moore's Digest, p. 173.) Had I thought and felt as you 
have done on the subject of Church polity and creeds, be- 
fore I acted in the organization of a Church in the bounds of 
the Presbytery and yet out of its jurisdiction, I would have 
dissolved my connection with the Presbytery, and so have 



[44] 



been released from my vows of fealty and service to the 
Presbyterian Church. I know you will pardon me this frank 
expression, of my views. 

Fraternally yours, 

Thomas H. Skinner. 

Proof 8.— Pastor now. See Minutes of the General 
Assembly for 1876, p. 233. Also, Kecords of Presbytery of 
Cincinnati, Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876. 

How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
is, see Moore's Digest, p. 173, 107 (1, a), 57 (14), 409 (ix), 
416 (i, ii); 107 (1, b); 169 (8, c, d); 416 (i), 409 (ix) ; 417 
(iii); 418 (iv), 149 (10, 12) ; 616 (i), 619 (4). 

Note. 

[Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
this specification. The vote was: 

Sustained. — Lichstenstein,Long, Leonard, West, Winness, 
Potter, Gamble— 7. 

Sustained in part. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortleyou, Cushman, 
Babbitt, Dudley, Wright, Maxwell, Chid law, James, Chester, 
Hawley, Jones, Hills, Schwenk, Dallas, Kennett, Conn — 18. 

Not sustained. — Ritchie, Camp, Beecher, Kumler, Morey, 
White, Mon fort, Evans, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, 
Mansfield— 12. Excused— Morris.] 



In conclusion, as stated in the preceding Charges, the 
views and course of the Rev. W. C. McCune are in con- 
travention, to wit : 

1. Of his ministerial vows. Digest, p. 410, xii (2), (3), 
(4), (6) ; p. 399, vii (2), (3), (4). Installation of Rev. W. C. 
McCune, at Lincoln Park Church. See Records of Pres- 
bytery. 

2. Of the terms of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical Basis 
of Union adopted by the Cincinnati Presbytery (O. S.), 
Avondale. See Records of Cincinnati Presbytery (O. S.), 
September 8, 1869. Digest, p. 91, ii, iii; p. 92, ii. 



[45] 



3. Of the Rev. W. C. McCune's vote adopting said Basis 
at said Presbytery. See Record of vote in Cincinnati 
Presbytery (0. S.), September 8, 1869. 

4. Of the Basis of Union adopted by the whole Presby- 
terian Church, 0. S. and 1ST. S., and declared adopted in 
Joint Convention at Pittsburg, Pa., November, 12, 1869. 
See Digest, p. 95 (32), (33), p. 96 (33), (34). 

Respectfully submitted by the Presbytery's Committee of 
Prosecution. 

Thomas H. Skinner, 
E. D. Ledyard, 
S. J. Thompson, 

Committee. 



Note as to the Charge. 

Presbytery voted that neither the second specification, 
which it did sustain, nor any of the proofs under either of 
the specifications, the first of which it did not sustain, proved 
the truth of the matter of this Charge. The vote was the 
same as on the foregoing Charge, except that the Rev. Mr. 
Wright voted not sustained, and the Rev. Mr. Babbitt voted 
sustained. 



SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE. 

I. The two general Charges, or rather one Charge in two- 
fold form. 

II. The Specifications under each Charge to support the 
same. 

III. The Proofs under each Specification. 

IV. The References to the Standards as contravened by 
Mr. McCune's teachings and course. 

V. The reference to the ministerial Yows of Mr. Mc- 
Cune. 

YI. The Reference to the adoption of the Basis of Re- 
union, by the Whole Presbyterian Church, the Presbytery 
of Cincinnati, and by Mr. McCune. 



OPENING ARGUMENT 

FOR THE PROSECUTION, 

BY 

REV. THOS, H. SKINNER. 



ARGUMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION. 



May it please the Court, Moderator, and Brethren of the Pres- 
bytery of Cincinnati: 

The Presbyterian Church is a foundation not to be de- 
stroyed. " God is in the midst of her, she shall not be 
moved." " The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, 
in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast 
led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, 
for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwel- 
among them." Ps. 67: 17, 18. "Wherefore He saith, 
when He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and 
gave gifts to men. And He gave some, apostles; and some, 
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till we 
all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of 
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of 
the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be 
no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about w^ith 
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning 
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive ; but, speak- 
ing the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all thiugs, 
who is the head, even Christ ; from whom the whole body, 
fitly joined together, and compacted by that w^hich every 
joint supplieth, according to the effectual w 7 orking in the 
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto 
the edifying of itself in love." Eph. 4 : 8, 11-17. 

Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, the Presbyte- 
rian Church has built her house. Her historic doctrine and 
order, written by a divine finger, and consecrated by the 

(49) 



[50] 



breath of inspiration, baptized with martyr-blood, and 
tested in the flame, all are dear to us beyond any earthly 
treasure. He that toucheth it, toucheth the apple of our 
eye. We make no vain boast, crying, " The temple of the 
Lord, the temple of the Lord are we !" We embrace in the 
spirit of Christian charity all other evangelical denomina- 
tions, differing from us on many points and in many ways. 
But what we do hold as distinctive and peculiar, we en- 
grave on our hearts and unfold on our Presbyterian banner, 
not ashamed to maintain that it is the truth of God, nor 
backward to defend it against every assault, whether from 
friendly foes without, or feigned friends within. 

Therefore, in the name of " The Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America," whose constitution and 
whose laws have been assailed, traduced, despised — whose 
honor has been wounded, name denied, and peace and 
unity and purity disturbed, does the prosecution, advanced, 
by your order, to its high responsibility, come into the court 
of this Presbytery to vindicate the doctrine and the rights 
of said church against the erroneous teaching and the rev- 
olutionary course of the defendant impleaded at your bar. 
This is "judicial process." The question is, Have we a 
" right to exist f" 

The case before us is of no ordinary importance. Its 
gravity outweighs that of all other cases put together, 
throughout the whole period of the history of the Presby- 
terian Church. It involves, not only the truth of her fun- 
damental doctrines, but the foundation also of her whole 
ecclesiastical edifice, with the structure itself built thereon. 
In other cases, the most that has been put in question by 
any of her sons has been some special phases of some 
special doctrines, or some particulars of polity. This, puts 
in question her very right to hold distinctive doctrines, her 
very right to build her Presbyterian house. The issues 
raised by the defendant, contemplate no less an outcome, in 
the future, than the overthrow of her whole superstructure, 
and the tearing up of her^whole foundation as a distinctive 
denomination, and the re-organization of the Presbyterian 
and all other denominations after the pattern of the new- 



[51] 



born institute at Linwoocl and Mount Lookout. Her Pres- 
byterian organization, government, discipline, creed, de- 
nominational enactments, her ordinances, terms of. fellow- 
ship and ministry, her vows of ordination, covenant, and 
right to live — all are put in question. " The form of the 
house and the fashion thereof, and the goings-out thereof, 
and the comings-in thereof, and all the laws thereof — upon 
the top of the mountain, the whole limit thereof, round- 
about" — the absolute " law of the house" — all is called in 
question. That apostolic pattern of the Church of Christ, 
which reforming hands have saved from travesties and Re- 
formations of fifteen hundred years, and summoned to a 
new exhibition at the call of the reforming angel, " Rise, 
and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them 
that worship therein" — the gospel church, its ministry, its 
doctrines, ordinances, fellowship, and form — must now be 
substituted by a new pattern shown in Mount Lookout 
towering over Horeb, higher than the new Jerusalem.! The 
symbols of Westminster, last and ripest fruit of eighteen 
hundred years of conflict, gathering to themselves the truth 
upon the doctrine and the order of the house of God, must 
be remanded to the dust of mediaeval manuscripts, the dingy 
alcoves of some old monastery, or, like Ephesian books of 
sorcery, be committed to the fire to please the " spirit of 
the age," the tone and temper of " organic union." 

To the advocacy of such liberalism as this, have we come 
within a semi-decade from the date of our reunion. Its 
toleration was impossible for thirty years last past in either 
branch. After long struggle to reach some authoritative 
declaration upon a subject of such vast importance to the 
Church, this Court is here convened at last judicially to say 
whether the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our com- 
mon standards, upon which the reunion was effected, shall 
endure, respected by our officers and people, or whether 
the Presbyterian denomination, as such, is a foundation to 
be destroyed for the sake of organic union. The Presby- 
terian Church asserts her scriptural authority, that is, her 
divine right to exist, precisely as she is to-day, under her 
distinctive standards as a separate denomination, protected 



[52] 



by her own denominational enactments and pledged to the 
enforcement of her doctrine and discipline. The defendant, 
a member of this Presbytery, asserts a counter-claim no 
less than this, that the Presbyterian denomination, as such, 
like all other evangelical denominations, built upon distinc- 
tive creeds, has no right whatever to exist, but should de- 
sist at once from the enforcement of her distinctive doctrines 
and her order, and plant herself upon organic union ground. 
Such is the issue plainly put, clear and unmistakable. 

The charges and specifications presented by the pros- 
ecution are in your hands. They speak for themselves. 
The general charge, in twofold form, is disloyalty to the 
Presbyterian Church in contravention of ordination vows. 
The specifications support the charges. The proofs support 
the specifications. The law points are appended to evince 
the fact that what is charged is an offense against the 
peace, the unity, and the purity of the Presbyterian 
Church, and a violation of the ordination vows. The 
prosecution call for the reading of the specifications seria- 
tim, leaving the general charge, in its twofold form, to be 
read at the close of the argument. 

SPECIFICATION I. 

Law of Organization. 
I proceed to consider Specification first. Mr. McCune 
asserts "the divine law of organization," the law of organic, 
visible Christian union, is tersely and comprehensively 
stated in Eom. xv, 7 : " Wherefore receive ye one another, 
as Christ has received us, to the glory of God." Nothing 
is clearer than that this text relates wholly to personal 
Christian fellowship and spiritual communion among those 
who were already members of the church at Rome, but 
among whom internal dissensions or schisms in the body 
had arisen on account of meats and drinks, festivals and 
ceremonies. It is the conclusion of an argument on things 
indifferent, commenced in chapter xiv, 1: "Him that is 
weak iu the faith (i. e. in moral conviction as to duty in 
the premises, for this is the meaning of 'pisHs' here) re- 
ceive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." The word 
translated "receive" (proslambanesthe), the same word used 



[53] 

Rom. xv, 7, occurs twelve times in the New Testament, 
and signifies (1) taking nourishment, and (2) personal com- 
panionship and friendship. The "weak brother" is a 
church member, already troubled with scruples of con- 
science, for this is the use of the term " adelphos" in the 
whole argument. " Take to your heart" and "treat kindly" 
your " weak brother," — not weak in the personal trust or 
saving faith of his heart toward Christ, but weak in moral 
casuistry, or cases of conscience, destitute as to a true con- 
viction of what is morally permissible or not permissible, 
under the law of Christ, to do or not to do. The question 
in debate was not as to the organization of the Christian 
church nor as to terms of admission to membership, though 
it is a legitimate inference that differences about things in- 
different are not to be made grounds of exclusion or non- 
reception, nor as to external visible oneness, nor as to denom- 
inations, nor as to church-union, nor as to terms of ministerial 
fellowship, nor as to ecclesiastical courts. All this is not ex- 
egesis, but eisegesis — a pure gratuitous importation into 
the text. It was not a question as to the admission of 
members into the church, but wholly as to the fellowship 
of members already admitted — that is, the receiving u one 
another" to mutual personal Christian communion, and ter- 
minating strife, alienation, and profitless disputation con- 
cerning things indifferent. The "weak" were not to slan- 
der those who were " strong" in moral conviction of duty ; 
the " strong" were not to despise the "weak." It was a 
question of fraternal relations purely, among brethren in 
the same house, not of organic union between members of 
different organizations. It was the adiaphoristic contro- 
versy of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, waged in 
the apostolic age — a controversy renewing itself in every 
period, more or less, in the church of Christ, as to things 
indifferent; i. e., neither "agatha," nor " kaka" but " adia- 
phora" neither per se right nor per se wrong, but either 
right or wrong per accidens, or according to circumstances 
— a question the most difficult of all in Christian morals. 
Paul's argument is a final arbitration of the whole dispute. 
Every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind, for 



[54] 

« whatsoever is not of conviction is sin." We must abstain 
from action if we conscientiously entertain any doubt as to 
the rectitude of our course. Where no objective precept 
exists, the subjective persuasion of the believer is the rule 
of action, and on this each one stands or falls to his Master. 
"Wherefore," says the apostle, concluding the whole argu- 
ment, " take to your hearts one another, as Christ also has 
taken us, to the glory of God." Lay aside all wrangling, 
and bitterness, and wrath, and slander, and contempt, Jew 
and Gentile, be reconciled to each other, in the unity of the 
spirit and bond of peace, even as Christ has reconciled us 
to himself, and God has been glorified. 

By what right of interpretation, diverting the passage 
from its context and sense, does Mr. McCune apply to 
things essential, a precept the Holy Ghost applies only to 
things indifferent, or conclude that evangelical denomina- 
tions, as such, are essentially sinful, and that the Presbyte- 
rian denomination, with the rest of them, has no scriptural 
right to exist? Rom. xv, 7, is his main and oft-repeated 
text. He finds in it what he calls a " divine, non-excluding 
law of organization." In the first place, it has no reference 
to " organization" whatever. In the next plape, even if it 
had, the non-exclusion has reference to things merely in- 
different, but no reference to things essential which belong 
to organization. The church may not exclude an appli- 
cant, who thinks he has a right, if he chooses, to eat meat 
or drink wine offered to idols ; but it is a preposterous in- 
ference that she may not exclude an applicant who refuses 
to be bound by Christ's command as to baptism, the Lord's 
supper, and obedience to the discipline of the eldership, or 
who does not believe that Christ is truly man, or the Bible 
truly infallible. The sophisms of the interpretation are 
glaring. Mr. McCune confounds internal relations of per- 
sonal Christian fellowship with external organization, Chris- 
tian unity with church union, the spiritual with the eccle- 
siastical, the inner substance with the outward form, unity 
from within with union from without, essential term.s of ad- 
mission to membership, with rules of conduct for members 
already admitted concerning things indifferent, unity with 



[55] 



union, and the word of God in relation to things about 
which differences are no bar to membership with the word 
of God in relation to things about which differences are a 
bar to membership. Conscience as to meats offered to idols, 
wines, ceremonies, festivals, and social parties, is certainly 
a very different thing from conscience as to prelacy and 
independency, elders and no elders, creed and no creed, 
baptism and no baptism, the covenant of God with believ- 
ers, terms of ministerial fellowship, and whether an un- 
baptized person may be admitted to church membership 
and come to the Lord's supper. Would Paul treat these 
last matters as things indifferent, and class them in the same 
category with the first? Would he tell us to drop our 
differences as to essential things for the sake of organic 
union, and act in reference to matters concerning which he 
has laid down the most authoritative and unbending rules 
and precepts, as though we were left here to subjective 
persuasion as the only law in the case? Truth is worth 
something, worth more than all outward church union ; 
and the head of the Church, the builder of his own house, 
will split an indifferent external church union, making an 
idol of her boasted uniformity, into a thousand fragments, 
to find one that will be loyal to his truth. He has done it 
more than once, and will do it again. By what right does 
Mr. McCune ground the law of church organization in a 
text relating wholly to things indifferent? Are the order 
of the house of God, its structure, ordinances, government 
and discipline, its officers and constitution, matters of in- 
difference ? Are ministers of every kind, because deemed 
evangelical according to some minimum standard of texts 
nakedly quoted and differently interpreted, and adjudged 
to be called to the ministry, some by one text, some by an- 
other, all to be received into one common ecclesiastical 
court as ministers of Christ? As to private members, does 
a " credible" profession of faith in Christ bind the church to 
admit a professor who refuses to obey the command of 
Christ to be baptized ? Is our expediency to set at naught 
Christ's authority? Or, again, Is the church restrained 
from exclusion, except upon evidence of unregeneracy ? 



[56] 



Or does she enjoy the right to admit in a case of disobedi- 
ence to Christ's command ? And yet such is the exegesis 
of Rom. xv, 7, by Mr. McCune. 

The Presbyterian Church condemns the doctrine of Mr. 
McCune. She denies, outright and officially, his interpre- 
tation of Romans xv : 7, upon which he builds his theory. 
As to her reception of members, I shall discuss the question 
further on. As to the application of Romans xv : 7, to the 
reception of ministers, she says, Digest, p. 45 (2) : although 
" we are willing to receive one another, as Christ has received 
us, to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred or- 
dinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at 
last admit to the kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly 
obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be 
kept pure and uncorrupted among us, and so handed down to 
our posterity." So, again, she declares, while thus asserting 
her risvht to exclude from her ecclesiastical courts all min- 
isters who can not hold the truth as she holds it, that " the 
terms of communion adopted in our church have ever been 
in accordance with the divine command that we should re- 
ceive one another as Christ has received us. We fully 
recognize the authority of the command " Him that is weak 
in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." 
The application of this command is entirely confined to private 
membership in the Church. It has no reference to the admission 
of men to offices in the house of God, or to the qualifications for 
admission into the office of the ministry." She asserts her 
perfect right " to declare the terms of admission into her 
communion, and the qualification of her ministers and 
members, as well as the whole system of internal govern- 
ment which Christ has appointed." Digest, p. 44 (2). She 
" enjoins on all her members and probationers for the min- 
istry that they teach and preach according to the form of 
sound words in said confession and catechisms, and avoid 
and oppose all contrary errors thereto." Digest, p. 48 (1). 
She refuses to " license or ordain to the work of the min- 
istry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfac- 
tion as to his learning and experimental acquaintance with 
religion, and skill in divinity and cases of conscience ; and 



[57 J 



declare his acceptance of the Westminster Confession and 
Catechisms as the confession of his faith, and promise sub- 
jection to the Presbyterian plan of government in the West- 
minster Directory." Digest, p. 49 (6). She demands of all 
her officers, deacons, elders, and ministers, by most solemn 
ordination vows, that they " sincerely adopt " and " ap- 
prove " her standards. Digest, pp. 346, 399, 411. She 
declares that her Confession of Faith is not only " neces- 
sary and expedient," but u absolutely requisite to the settled 
peace of the Church, and to the happy and orderly exist- 
ence of Christian communion ;" and subjects to discipline 
any in her communion who " traduce " it. Digest, p. 54 
(11). Ministers who can not adopt her standards she will 
not receive. Digest, p. 57. Those who are hostile to creeds 
and confessions she rejects. Digest, p. 55. She requires 
those who change their doctrinal views to " peaceably 
withdraw." Digest, p. 48 (11). Ministers who come to her 
from other denominations, she enjoins " to teach in the 
manner required by our standards." Digest, p. 148. Those 
who " withdraw to other denominations " she commands 
to be " stricken from the roll." Digest, pp. 169, 620. 
"Churches" that refuse to be organized according to her 
principles of government, she will not receive. Digest, pp. 
92 (2), 63 (2). She will unite, ecclesiastically, with none, 
except on the basis of her Westminster standards, and 
would only reunite her own divisions on the same basis, 
pure and simple. Digest, pp. 45, 48, 58, 61, 62, 71, 91. Her 
whole organic constitution she asserts to be " agreeable to 
Scripture and the practice of the primitive Christians." 
Digest, p. 120. And makes express provision that her 
courts shall enforce and observe " the Constitution of the 
Church." She " strictly enjoins on her presbyteries to 
"promote the diffusion and wider circulation of* the Con- 
fession of Faith and Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian 
Church ;" recommends her congregations to " supply the 
poor " with the same and the catechisms ; and urges pastors 
to " induce every family in our connection to supply them- 
selves with a copy of the Standards of our Church." Baird's 
Digest, p. 45. All this is what Mr. McCune calls " Presby- 



[58] 



terian sectarianism," a " hurtful excrescence," and to be 
condemned. The " common faith " of the Church of 
Christ she regards as something more than the minimum 
collation of a few texts, undefined by modem organic 
Unionists. She regards it as the consensus of the symbols 
of the Eeformation. Digest, pp. 56, 71. Such is the honor 
she pours upon the martyr-won and glorious doctrinal 
banner of her faith and order. 

In reference to the reception of private Church members, 
she presumes not to sit in judgment on the heart of any. 
She requires not only a credible profession of faith in 
and love to Christ, but also some proper knowledge of 
Christ, of the nature of the Lord's supper, and pledge 
of obedience not only to Christ but to those whom He 
has set to rule in His Church, and exercise discipline for 
their spiritual good. These are her terms of communion. 
Therefore, without judging the heart, or deciding that they 
are without faith in Christ, she refuses to admit professed 
[Jniversalists. Digest, 674. She makes it a question of 
expediency, to be determined, in all cases, by the session, 
whether to receive those who object to the baptism of 
children, or those who are connected, in any way, with the 
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Digest, pp. 
674, 675. Those who pursue any secular avocation on the 
Sabbath are not to be admitted. Digest, p. 678. They 
who refuse to be themselves baptized, or to pledge submis- 
sion to her discipline, she forbids an entrance. Digest, pp. 
676, 677. In all these cases, without assuming to decide 
that^ those she declines to receive are without faith, and be- 
lieving in some cases that faith may exist, she asserts her 
right to so decline, for reasons founded on the word of God. 
It is clear, therefore, that the Presbyterian Church does ex- 
clude from her membership certain individuals whose per- 
sonal faith in Christ she does not assume to question, and 
certain ministers whose professed acceptance of a " few 
leading doctrines" she does not pretend to dispute. She 
declares, by her Supreme Court, that Romans xv: 7 does 
not forbid, as Mr. McCune asserts it does forbid, such ex- 
clusion from her own pale. She affirms that she is " entitled 



[59] 



to declare the terms of admission " into her ecclesiastical 
communion, and the " qualifications of her ministers and 
members," and that her terms of communion have always 
been " in accordance with the divine command that we 
should receive one another as Christ has received us" — that 
is in perfect accordance with Romans xv : 7. Mr. McCune 
tells her that her utterance is untrue. She declares that 
terms of Church-membership are one thing, and terms of 
salvation are another, and that every church has the right 
to declare its own terms, and that in some respects these 
may be different from each other. Mr. McCune denies 
this. She asserts that the force of the precept in Romans 
xv : 7 relates wholly to things indifferent — to the personal 
relations of private members — and that it has no reference 
to ministerial qualifications, to the reception or exclusion of 
ministers, or to things essential to organization, such as a 
Divinely-established order, sacraments, ordinances, or non- 
toleration of false doctrine. Mr. McCune tells us she is 
blind. He is in complete antagonism, as a Presbyterian 
minister, with the faith and order of his Church on this 
whole matter. 

And as to the excommunication of church members, the 
Presbyterian Church does not base this excommunication 
upon the judgment that they are unregenerate. " Gross 
offenders who will not be reclaimed by the private or public 
admonitions of the Church are to be cut off," Christians or 
no Christians. Digest p. 513. They may in some cases be 
children of God whom only such punishment can be the 
means of reclaiming from the snare of Satan. They may 
be children of the wicked one. The Church does not decide. 
Enough, that, whether from ignorance, pride, perversity, 
temptation, or theories of church power, or hostile judg- 
ment, or contumacy, he who refuses to " hear the Church," 
or submit to her discipline, is to be as a " heathen man and 
a publican," The authority of Christ's house is to be 
maintained. The Church, without sitting in judgment on 
the heart of any, excludes from her communion those guilty 
of long and wilful absence, and violation of solemn covenant 
engagements. Digest, p. 494. For grossly heretical views 



[60] 



she excommunicates. Digest, p. 128. For unlawful divorce 
or marriage, and for breach of marriage vows by wilful ab- 
sence, which she accounts a breach of the seventh command- 
ment. Digest, p. 494 Larger Cat. Q. 139. Also for persist- 
ence in improper language (p. 569), for slander, fraud, theft, 
neglect of the Lord's supper— in short, for any " gross 
offense," continued against the admonition of the Church. 
Her discipline deals with conduct alone. It demands a con- 
versation becoming the Gospel of Christ. The Presbyterian 
Church believes that a man may be a Christian and yet be 
guilty of " gross offenses," as were Abraham and Lot, 
Jacob and Samson, David and Peter. For such offenses, 
unrepented of, excommunication will ensue. Her purity 
depends upon it. She has no infallible term of admission, 
no infallible term of exclusion. A credible profession be- 
fore men may be a false one before God. An excommu- 
nicated person may yet be regenerate, though delivered, for 
the time, to Satan. Her act of exclusion from membership 
does not depend on her judgment of the regeneracy or un- 
regeneracy of the excluded. Search the standards from be- 
ginning to end. Not a clause can be found intimating any 
such doctrin e as that of Mr. Mc Cune, but everything to the 
contrary. Nowhere does the Church teach that excommu- 
nication proceeds upon the assumption or proof that the 
offender is unregenerate. IsTor does the Scripture, to which 
Mr. McCune appeals, state, in any case, that the excom- 
municate either was or was not a Christian. It calls him a 
" brother," that is, a church member, for that is the mean- 
ing of the term " adelphos." There is no proof that he was 
not a Christian. "Disorderly walk" is no more a proof — 
ipso facto, of unregeneracy, than faultless conduct is a proof, 
ipso facto, of holiness. However clear may be the gross 
inconsistency between disorderly conduct and divine grace, 
yet it is a humiliating fact that some of God's children do 
lie, and slander, and deceive, and steal, and practice in- 
justice, and commit grievous crimes, and persist for a long 
time in the same, and give occasion to the enemies of God 
to blaspheme. While it is true that the court, in inflicting 
excommunication, does virtually review and reverse the 



[61] 



judgment already had upon the qualifications for member- 
ship of the applicant at the time of his reception, yet it is 
false to infer, either that the original decision to receive 
settled the question of his regeneracy, or that its reversal, 
by excommunication, settles the question of his unregen- 
eracy. All that it does settle is that, as it was only upon a 
credible profession of faith (not credible evidence of regen- 
eracy), he could be received, so it is for want of that 
credible profession he- is, at last, excluded. He is excluded 
because of the existence of that which, had it appeared at 
first, would have prevented his immediate reception. It 
is " not necessary to show " that the apostles excluded real 
Christians, before the Church may exclude a disorderly 
member. Our Book recognizes no such doctrine. The 
theory of excommunication advocated by Mr. McCune is 
a legitimate outgrowth of his organic union principles. It 
is not the doctrine of the standards of our Church. Our 
courts judge conduct. God alone judges the heart. 

I have presented the doctrine of Mr. McCune and the 
doctrine of the standards. Zenith and nadir are not more 
opposed. I have shown the falsity of his interpretation of 
Rom. xv;7, and the official denial of that interpretation by 
the General Assembly, twice over — a denial fortified by the 
whole frame-work of our polity, and wrought throughout 
the whole web of our history. On Mr. McCune's theory 
our standards ought to be burned up, our whole form of 
government, and book of discipline, their structure, cap- 
tions, and provisions, and all our decisions built thereupon, 
destroyed, for all are utterly irreconcilable with his non- 
excluding " divine law of organization." "When, therefore, 
he teaches such doctrine and propagates such views, and 
calls upon Presbyterians and all other evangelical Christians 
to rally for a reconstruction of the whole Church of Christ 
upon his Linwood and Mount Lookout basis, the prosecu- 
tion affirms, in the name of the Presbyterian Church, that 
he advocates principles and views, not only at war with the 
standards of the Church, but which, if generally accepted, 
would totally subvert our constitution, and blot out the very 
existence of the Presbyterian denomination itself. His so- 



[62] 



called " divine law of organization " is simply a misinter- 
pretation of the scripture. 

SPECIFICATION II. 

Anti-denomination, 

I proceed to the second specification. In it Mr. McCane 
affirms the essential sinfulness of all evangelical denomina- 
tions, as such, and this includes the Presbyterian denomi- 
nation. None have any right to exist, because not formed 
on his " divine law of organization." " The Presbyterian 
Church requires more" than Mr. McCune's law requires, 
and, not being built upon this law, has no scriptural right 
to exist, as a denomination. The Christianity held in com- 
mon with other denominations he does not assail. The 
distinctive peculiarities of Presbyterianism, in her doctrine 
and polity, all that differentiates her from other churches, 
and the teaching which she enforces upon her official min- 
istry; in brief, her distinctive denominationalism, he con- 
demns as " sectarianism," " essentially sinful," " an excres- 
cence," " anti-scriptural," un scriptural," "mischievous," 
and " destitute of scriptural authority." He is opposed, 
utterly, to denominations as such. They are " sinful." Of 
course, if this is the fact, the quicker they are done away 
with, the better. 

The Presbyterian Church does not so believe. She re- 
gards her government, discipline, organization, creed, cov- 
enant, terms of admission and laws of fellowship as essen- 
tially righteous. The very things which distinguish her as 
a denomination, and constitute her peculiarities, she cherishes 
with becoming pride and gratitude to God, and claims her 
historic heirloom as evidence that, as a distinctive denom- 
ination, she is, in her peculiar doctrine and order, nearer 
the Word of God than any other denomination on earth. 
The proof of this is abundant as the pages of her standards, 
and multiplied as the leaves of her history. In her " system 
of union," portrayed in the principles preliminary to her 
form of government, and elsewhere, she recognizes the right 
of all evangelical denominations to exist, equally as her 
own, and upon the very same grounds, grounds of conscience, 
charity, forbearance, peace and unity, grounds of expedi- 



[63] 



ency and propriety. She calls them " orthodox churches of 
Christ," " societies/' " particular societies," " associations 
of particular churches," "denominations," "protestant de- 
nominations," and affirms their right to exist, and to declare 
their own terms of communion. Digest, pp. 44, 51, 147. 
She acknowledges room for honest differences of opinion 
as to "truths and forms." Pp. 44, 50. She insists upon de- 
nominational confessions and creeds, as " absolutely requisite 
to the settled peace of the Church, and to the happy and 
orderly existence of Christian Communion." P. 54. She 
excludes from her own denomination " all Ministers and 
Churches who can not relinquish their peculiarities with a 
good conscience," and will not tolerate their antagonisms in 
her own bosom. P. 57. She says : " We are Presbyterians, 
and we firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, 
discipline, and church government to be nearer to the Word 
of God than that of any other sect or denomination." 
Baird's Digest, p. 38. She has made her confession and discip- 
line a basis, and the only basis, of her re-united existence. 
Moore's Digest, p. 91 [2]. She declares her distinctive or- 
ganization is " agreeable to Scripture and the practice of 
primitive Christians," and in full consistency with this be- 
lief she yet " embraces in the spirit of charity all who differ 
from her in opinion and practice on these subjects." P. 
120 [1]. This toleration of the rights and institutions of 
others, so far from prompting her to self-dissolution for the 
sake of organic union, leads her to engrave in her standards 
the .perpetual provision that her courts shall "take effect- 
ual care" that her peculiar constitution shall be preserved 
and enforced. P. 141 [IV]. Nor will she allow any min- 
ister belonging to another denomination to retain official 
membership in her own. P. 620. I need not quote further. 
The Presbyterian Church may be either deplorably blind, 
or bigoted, or criminal in Mr. McCune's eyes, for her esti- 
mate of her own importance, and the exercise of Christian 
charity towards all other evangelical denominations ; but sin 
and holiness are not more opposed than are the contradic- 
tory positions of Mr. McCune and his Church. It is not 
possible that any loyal Presbyterian could indulge the lan- 



[64] 



guage of Mr. McCune, or sincerely adopt and approve the 
Westminster standards. Nor is it possible that any Pres- 
byterian minister, having the honor, peace, unity and purity 
of the Presbyterian Church at heart, more than his own 
theories or purposes, could be so far forgetful of his solemn 
ordination vows, as to countenance, encourage, palliate, de- 
fend, or even tolerate, the continued propagation of a stand- 
ing libel upon his own Church, proclaiming to the world 
the " essential sinfulness " of its denominational character, 
and denying to it, as well as to all other evangelical denom- 
inations, even the right of existence. 

Mr. McCune's anti-denominational law rests upon a doc- 
trine in irreconcileable conflict with th« doctrine of the 
Presbyterian Church and the Scriptures as to the " Body of 
Christ." He not only misinterprets God's Word as to things 
indifferent; he likewise misinterprets it as to things essential. 
He blunders into the papal artifice of identifying the "Body 
of Christ" with the " visible Church," or the whole company 
of professing Christians. The Ch urch on earth, he tells us, is 
an external and unitous organization of regenerate souls. The 
" Communion*of Saints " is, therefore, an ecclesiastical com- 
munion. Membership in the visible Church is membership 
in the " Body of Christ." The separation of the visible 
Church into denominations is the rending of the " Body 
of Christ," and a sinful breach of the " Communion of 
Saints." Hence his anti-denominationalism. Hence his 
declaration that denominations, as such, are " esseutially 
sinful " and have no right to exist. Hence his new " divine 
law of organization " and " non-exclusion " of any Chris- 
tian minister or member from any particular denomination. 
Hence his practical denial of what our standards expressly 
afiirm, viz: that each society has the right to declare its 
own terms of ministerial fellowship. Hence the glaring 
fallacy in the opening sentence of the Linwood " Declara- 
tion," and all through the "Address" to the Churches of 
North America, confounding the "One Body" with the 
Visible Church, denouncing denominations as a disruption 
of the Body and a dividing of Christ. Hence the unen- 
durable sentiment that so long as denominations exist our 



[65] 



Savior's intercessory prayer is not fully realised, as though 
the doctrine of union to Christ and the Communion of 
Saints depended for its perfection upon external oneness of 
Church organization. Hence the external oneness he so 
zealously advocates. It is Rome's theory and Rome's unity. 

But the Church visible is not the " Body of Christ;" nor 
is external church communion the " Communion of Saints;" 
nor is external oneness the unity of the " One Body " de- 
scribed by Paul; nor is Church Union Christian Unity. 
Our Standards discriminate, clearly, the Communion of 
Saints from Church Communion. The latter is the exter- 
nal fellowship of the visible Church in ordinances and 
ecclesiastical membership, restricted by the right of every 
particular Church to declare its own terms of communion ; 
the former is the inward, spiritual, and unlimited fellowship 
of the whole "Body of Christ" in earth and in Heaven 
in the life, sufferings, death, resurrection, grace, and glory, 
of its adorable Head. It is spiritual. " I in them, and 
Thou in me ! " " That they may be one as we are." It rests 
upon the indissoluble spiritual conjunction of the living 
members with the living Head, each member in inseparable 
communion with every other, no matter how outwardly 
separated by time, place, or name, all common members of 
the one spiritual " Body of Christ." Form of Gov., chap. I 
(II). Conf. of Faith, chap. XXYI. Larger Cat. Q. 69, 82, 
83, 86. The external symbol or pledge of this " Com- 
munion of Saints" is not any common external church- 
membership, but the sacramental scene and solemnity of 
the Lord's Supper. Conf. of Faith, chap. XXIX (I). No- 
where in our Standards is the u One Body," or the " Body 
of Christ" applied to the visible Church. Nowhere is ex- 
ternal oneness of organization classed among the privileges 
or marks of either the visible or invisible Church. No- 
where is the Communion of Saints confounded with exter- 
• nal organic union. Nowhere is outward oneness of 
organization, this side of eternal glory, implied as a neces- 
sary demand or involved result of this " Communion of 
Saints." Everywhere the doctrine runs through all de- 
scriptions and definitions that the Communion of Saints, 



[66] 



founded on the spiritual oneness for which our Saviour 
prayed — a prayer ever fulfilled from the hour it was poured 
at Gethsemane's gate — is as consistent with the existence 
of five hundred denominations as with one. v Nowhere is it 
possible to draw the conclusion that evangelical denomina- 
tions, as such, are a breach of Christian unity, whatever 
they may be of an outward, all-absorbing external Ro- 
manistic Babel of IndifTerentism and Church Union. Who 
does not know that " Rome's Organic Union," so called, is 
a carnal caricature and Satanic aping of the Spiritual union 
between Christ the " Head " and the mystical " Body ?" 
Upon such a theory of union, anti-denominationalism rests. 
It is Rome's argument, and in Proof 6, Mf. McCune admits 
it. The external and spiritual are confounded. The logic 
is that the outward church must be visibly one because the 
invisible church is spiritually one. The theory leads 
inevitably to an external visible Head, the Pope. The 
Reformers denied the theory, and lifted to notice the clear 
distinction in God's Word between the visible church and 
the " Body of Christ." The doctrine of Mr. McCune is a 
denial of this fundamental truth, and a consequent denial 
of the Scripture right of the Reformed denominations to 
exist. He charges that they violate the external oneness 
and Communion of Saints. Protestantism never fathered 
such a mediaeval monstrosity or jumble of confusion as 
this, and then sought to justify its separation from Rome. 
Reformed Symbolism could not embody it, and justify the 
separation from Lutheranism. Much less could the West- 
minster Standards assert the doctrine and justify the dis- 
tinctive, peculiar, and Divine right of the Presbyterian 
Church to exist. It is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian ' 
Church that evangelical denominations, as such, are esssen- 
tially sinful. It is not the doctrine of the Scriptures. It 
is anti-Protestant and pro-Roman. Mr. McCune has yet to 
learn that the guilt of Schism and Sectarianism rested not * 
upon the Reformers, but upon Rome; on the English Es- 
tablishment, and not upon the two thousand ejected non- 
conformist ministers; on the Scotch Establishment, and 
not on the Eree Church movement. He has yet to learn 



[67] 



what all History teaches, that God raises up denominations 
for his own glory and the good of His Church, and, that, 
in every case of importance, the outward Bahel of Or- 
ganic Union has been broken up for the sake of the Peace 
and Truth of God, of more value than any externalism 
down from the Signal Mound on Shinar's plain struck by 
lightning, to the last theological Institute for " Candidates" 
and " Ministers" at Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 

" The Church," says Dr. Bannerman in his admirable 
work, " is described as the * Body of Christ/ all the mem- 
bers of which are united to Him as the Head of life, in- 
fluence, and grace to them ; a description not applicable to 
any body of professing Christians, made up of any or all com- 
munions, but only to be realized in that great multitude 
which no man has seen or numbered, who make up the 
invisible Church of the Redeemer, and whose names are 
written in Heaven." " To apply interchangeably, and as if 
properly convertible, what is spoken in Scripture of the in- 
visible Church, to the visible, and vice versa, is a frequent 
and favorite resource of Romanist Controversialists." 
Church of Christ, Yol. I, pp. 8, 39. It is precisely what 
Mr. McCune has done. It is the basis of his anti-denom- 
inationalism. It rests on an utterly false view of the nature 
of the Church. " Romanists teach," says Dr. Hodge, "that 
tbe Church is essentially an external organized community, 
as the commonwealth of Israel." " Protestants teach, in 
exact accordance with the doctrine of Christ and His 
apostles, (1) that the Church, as such, is not an external 
organization, and (2) that all true believers, in whom tbe 
Spirit of God dwells, are members of that Church which is 
the 'Body of Christ/ " Syst. Theol. Yol. I, pp. 131, 135. 

This is the view of our Standards. They deny that the 
"Body of Christ," the "One Body" means the visible 
Church, and so deny Mr. McCune's second fundamental 
interpretation of Scripture. They deny that the oneness 
of the "Body of Christ" is external oneness, and so con- 
tradict Mr. McCune's doctrine that denominations are a 
crime against the " One Body," the "Body of Christ," and 
a crime against the " Communion of Saints." Denying 



[68] 



this, they deny that denominations are "essentially sinful," 
and affirming the Divine right or Scriptural authority for the 
existence of the Presbyterian denomination, as such. They 
take the same ground, in reference to Mr. McCune's third 
fundmental misinterpretation, viz., that of our Savior's inter- 
cessary prayer as necessitating external oneness, and also 
in reference to his fourth misinterpretation of the Scripture 
referring to the "schisms and divisions''* in the Corinthian 
Church which he interprets as external separations to be 
avoided, whereas they were internal disorders in the spiritual 
"Body of Christ," personal alienations of believers, divi- 
sions of mind, party preferences and strifes, " Schism in 
the Body." The Sectarianism Paul deplored was not a 
charitable denominationalism. It was a party spirit in the 
" One Body," a sinful breach of spiritual fellowship, not of 
Church membership. It was not two peaceful denomina- 
tions, working nobly for the master, and bearing with each 
other's conscientious differences, he rebuked, but one 
organic denomination, depreciating the truth of Christ, 
wasting its energies in strife and alienations about Paul, 
Apollos, Cephas, and Christ, and marring its own spiritual 
life, unity, and communion by sinful contention. Well has 
Dr. Errett, the gifted editor of the Standard, said, in his 
controversy with Mr. McCune : " It is easy to say hard 
things about Sectarianism, and to profess great abhorrence 
of it. But the farther men get from Christ, the more 
liberal can they afford to be in giving away His Truth, and 
in the popular sense of the word Charity, the men of the 
largest charity are the men who hold at the very cheapest 
rate the truth that Jesus taught." Standard, December 18, 
1875. 

Mr. McCune exclaims, both hands uplifted, against the 
"sin" of "enforcing" upon the official ministry a distinc- 
tive denominational creed. He smites it as a crime against 
the Communion of Saints. Presbyterian Sectarianism, as 
he calls it, he hates. I have already quoted the constitu- 
tional provisions of the Pr.esbyterian Church requiring the 
enforcement of her Standards upon all her office-bearers, 
ministers, elders, and deacons. I need not quote them 



[69] 



again. Enactment of denominational laws, and enforce- 
ment of denominational creeds, he accounts an, oppression 
of the conscience. "Whose conscience does it oppress? 
!N"ot his who sincerely approves it. It is a protest against 
his own ordination vows, a declaration that he is not in 
fact, what he professed himself to be, and that he does not 
sincerely adopt and approve our Standards. He denies the 
right of the Presbyterian Church to present to him the 
alternatives of either teaching the distinctive doctrines of 
her system, or leaving her communion. The issue is plain 
and unmistakable. It is the proclamation of independency 
while yet remaining in the bosom of the Church. He has 
given us abundant illustration of it. For " ten years " he 
has denied her right to exist, or enforce her creed. He 
protested against the appointment of a Committee of In- 
vestigation. He protested against the exercise of episcopal 
power. He protested against the institution of judicial 
process. He declared, at first, he would not receive the 
judicial charges from the prosecution. He is opposed to 
the enforcement of our denominational law. He denounces 
it as a " sin." He tells us he proposes to teach in future 
the doctrines he has taught in the past. And to fortify his 
claim to exercise himself in this imperial way, he, formally, 
announces to all whom it may concern that " the Presby- 
terian Church has ceased to enforce Infant Baptism." He 
longs and labors for the day when she will cease to enforce 
all her distinctive tenets. He would like to see them 
either dropped off or hung up as a dried curiosity in some 
library, or metamorphosed by revision into the likeness of 
the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Manual, with a " Basis of 
Fellowship " for a Creed, and some " Regulations of Ex- 
pediency " for a Polity. 

Moderator, the doctrine of non-enforcement is not the 
doctrine of our Standards, whatever our lax practice may 
be. It is the doctrine of covenant-breaking, anarchy, and 
revolution, the doctrine of the tyranny of liberalism, and 
the despotism of arbitrary power, trampling every constitu- 
tional right of the individual under foot, and every guaran- 
tee for the defense of the truth and order of the House of 



[70] 



God, and for the protection of personal character of 
ministers and members. It is the doctrine of disobedience 
to vows, ft is treason to the Presbyterian Church. It is 
nullification. It abolishes the Constitution to meet a con- 
tingency, build up an interest, or further a scheme. It 
keeps no faith with brethren. Promises are pretences. 
Compacts are nullities. Majorities are riders. Engagements, 
sealed by prayer, are mockeries. It invokes the repudiation 
of discipline — offers a premium on policy adverse to truth, 
and bids for a human expediency adverse to Divine right- 
eousness. It means liberty to do and to teach as one 
pleases, under the euphonious nomenclature of " forbear- 
ance in love" — license to circulate assaults upon Presby- 
terian doctrine/ and polity — toleration to print manuals of 
organic union, and to organize at Linwood and Mt. Look- 
out. Need I ask, is it possible for a Presbyterian minister 
sincerely to approve the government and discipline of the 
Presbyterian Church, and be zealous and faithful in study- 
ing her peace, unity, and purity, and yet advocate the non- 
enforcement of her distinctive doctrine and order? Is this 
loyalty ? 

Once more, Mr. McCune asserts, not only that the Pres- 
byterian denomination has no right to exist, but denies her 
right, as such, to be called a " Church." His plea that this 
is the Congregational view amounts to nothing. This may 
appear to some a little thing, but* it is great. It means 
more than the childish truism that one particular Church is 
not many particular Churches, or that many particular 
Churches are not a single particular Church. Pompey, 
couching at the door, knows that one is not forty, and forty 
not one. It means that the term " Church " can not be ap- 
plied to a plurality of congregations, organically held under 
one rule. It is a lever to "upheave our whole polity. Be- 
lieve that statement, and Presbyterianism melts out of 
sight. The Presbyterian standards maintain that the term 
" Church" has a five-fold Scriptural application. It means 
(1) the "Body of Christ," i. e. the whole body of believers 
on earth and in heaven, the plural unit of all who are 
joined to Christ by individual faith, the Invisible Church; 



[71] 

(2) the whole body, or plural unit of professing Christians 
on earth, together -with their children, i. e. the outward Visi- 
ble Church ; (3) the whole body, or plural unit of professed 
believers in "any particular spot, i. e. the particular congre- 
gation ; (4) the whole body, or plural unit of associated 
congregations organically connected together under one ec- 
clesiastical order or rule, L e. the particular denomination; 
(5) the whole bench, or plural unit of representatives, or 
office-bearers, as distinguished from the congregation or 
the people, L e. a particular court. Mr. McCune denies two 
of these definitions in whole, the 4th and 5th, and two in 
part, the 2d and 3d. He holds that the term " Church " is 
applicable, " in the singular number," (1) to the Body of 
Christ, and (2) to a particular congregation, minus the in- 
fants of believers. He denies that it is applicable to a 
plurality of congregations organically connected under one 
ecclesiastical rule, with superior representative Courts of 
review and control, i. e. he denies Presbytery and asserts 
Independency. A Presbytery for him is " an unauthorized 
and unscriptural " body, a Synod, the same, a General As- 
sembly, the same. The necessary result is that the Presby- 
terian denomination, as such, is no " Church " at all. It 
follows from his argument on the definition of a Church. 
This denial strikes at the root of our whole polity. Every 
Presbyterian knows, perfectly well, that the peculiar and 
distinctive mark of Presbyterianism, as a polity, is not the 
eldership, for the early congregationalists all had their bench 
of elders, and John Owen's celebrated treatise on the " True 
Nature of a Gospel Church," abundantly establishes this 
fact; but it is (1) the doctrine of a plurality of congrega- 
tions organically held together in subordination to one com- 
mon ecclesiastical rule, and (2) an ascending series of courts 
built upon that rule. These in their totality constitute a 
Church. This is Presbyterianism as opposed to the indi- 
vidualistic idea of Independency. Mr. McCune retires 
from the Hall of Westminster, with the Independents, una- 
ble to stand beside the Presbyterians, and maintain the pro- 
position "the Scripture doth hold forth that many particu- 
lar congregations may be under one Presbyterial govern- 



[72] 



merit." Gillespie's "Armor" he throws aside. His theory 
repudiates an ascending series of courts. Distinctive Pres- 
byterian polity can not survive his denial of the application 
of the term Church "in the singular number " to a plurality 
of associated congregations organically held under one ec- 
clesiastical rule. The Presbyterian denomination is, there- 
fore, " not a Church." "Admit," says Dr. Bannerman r 
"the narrow position taken by the Independents in regard 
to the true meaning and nature of the Church, as defined 
in Scripture, restrict the term to one or other of the two 
significations of either the invisible Church at large, or a 
single congregation of believers in a particular locality, 
and you, in fact, concede every principle that is necessary 
for them to establish their views as to the form of the 
Church and the nature of its government." It is precisely 
just what Mr. McCune has done. It is not possible for a 
man sincerely to adopt and approve our Presbyterian polity 
and advocate the views of Mr. McCune. I affirm again, 
upon his own testimony, that Mr. McCune is an Indepen- 
dent in polity, and not a Presbyterian. It is not possible 
for a man with such convictions to be at rest, or study the 
peace, unity, and purity of the Church. The first advening 
opportunity he will either seek or create an independent 
pastorate where his particular local Church " in the singular 
number " will exist " outside Presbyterian jurisdiction," as 
at Linvvood and Mt. Lookout, while he himself still hangs 
on to his " unauthorized," " extra-Scriptural " Presbyterian 
organization, for the sake of " good standing" and public 
"indorsement" by a body whose character he denounces as 
" sectarian,"^ whose distinctive creed he traduces as an " ex- 
crescence," whose " right to exist " he denies, and whose 
name as a " Church" he rejects, and wifrh a boldness un- 
paralleled he informs us that his purpose is to remain in the 
Presbyterian Church, spread abroad his doctrines and "im- 
bue the whole denomination with them," and agitate and 
seek "revision" of the standards in the interest of his 
scheme. Is this loyalty ? Is it honor ? I affirm that it is 
disloyalty and treason of the most glaring character, delib- 
erate, intentional, and persistent to the Church, as well as 



[73] 



persistent misrepresentation of Scripture, and that, as a se- 
cular editor has well said, " a charge of nitro-glycerine un- 
der a nine inch wall, would not be more destructive to the 
wall than McCuneism is, if allowed, to the Presbyterian 
denomination." In answer to Mr. McCune's allegation that 
the Presbyterian denomination is not a Church, I present 
her legal title, under which she is incorporated and which 
flames on the frontlet of her standards he professes to ap- 
prove, " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America." I pass to the third specification. 

SPECIFICATION III. 

Creeds. 

If Mr. McCune's views have amazed us, already, on ac- 
count of their gross perversions of Scripture/and point-blank 
contradiction of our standards, they will, under this speci- 
fication, make us almost doubt our own eyes, and compel 
us to read again the proofs, finger on every line. What is 
it we see ? The sight of a Presbyterian minister, who hav- 
ing professed sincere adoption of the Westminster stand- 
ards, yet lifts up the voice of remonstrance and declares to the 
church that he is utterly opposed to all human creeds ; that 
the only creed he will accept is a " genuine New Testament 
creed," i. e. a syllabus of unexplained texts, a " few leading 
truths," or what he calls " the common faith " " expressed in 
GodVown language" as "commonly received," " without any 
human inferences," " deductions," or " modifications ;" that 
he would " strike out " of every creed, had he the power, 
everything all Christians could " not see to be law in Scrip- 
ture ;" that " the Bible" (he does not say whether in He- 
brew or Greek or English) is the " only true, proper, and 
sufficient creed for all ministers ;" that human creeds are 
sectarian creeds and " always mischievous and sinful ;" that 
every argument to prove the need of an enlarged creed is 
a " falsity ;" that no creed tests are to be allowed in the 
examination or ordination of ministers (an illustration of 
which was had in the "Council" that examined and in- 
stalled Mr. McCune over the new institute that requires 
" no assent to any denominational peculiarity !") ; that " no 
surrender" of any peculiarity, and free speech, with no 



[74] 



"enforcement" of any peculiarity and free speech is the 
Gospel style of things, and that before the Church has any 
right to make a creed at all, she must be either unanimously 
orthodox, or unanimously heretical, in order that no man's 
conscience may be oppressed ! The reason for all this, he 
tells us, is, first, that " Saving Faith," and second, "a few 
leading fundamental doctrines" (he does not say how- 
many) effectually " exclude all fatal heresy" (not saying 
whether he means fatal to salvation, or fatal to the truth 
of God, which is the means of salvation); and that herein 
the blessed apostles were an example to us, and to 'all secta- 
rian Protestantism, versus our own 44 unblushing assumption 
of divine prerogative," which differs nothing, he assures us, 
from the ki rotten basis on which Rome stands." " If," in 
the language of Mr. McCune, "the whole Church of the 
living God, including all, of every. name, who give satis- 
factory scriptural evidence that they are born of the Spirit," 
had only entertained, from the beginning, similar senti- 
ments to these, what a literature had been spared, how ab- 
breviated the theological curriculum had been, what a 
saving of funds unnecessarily wasted on seminaries, and of 
toil in laboriously writing the career of the Church, and 
how multiplied prototypes of the Council at Mount Look- 
out would have dazzled in history, instead of the dull spec- 
tacles of Xice, Chalcedon, Dort, and Westminster ! 

Our Standards set their face against the doctrine of Mr. 
McCune and repudiate it as dangerous and false. They do 
it in the declaration that every Christian Church has the 
right to declare its own terms of communion. They do it 
not only in affirming the right of private judgment, but the 
Church's right, as the Steward of the mysteries of God, to 
declare to the world in her own language, as a witness on 
the stand, speaking in his own words, what she believes 
the AYord of God means, and what she understands thereby. 
" Understandest thou what thou readest? How can I ex- 
cept some man should guide me ?" Acts 8 : 30. " The 
meaning of the Bible," says Cecil, "zs the Bible." "The 
sense of Scripture," says' Waterland, " is Scripture." The 
Presbyterian Church affirms that " Confessions of Faith, 



[75] 



containing formulas of doctrine and rules for conducting 
the discipline and worship proper to be maintained in the 
house of God, are not only recognized as necessary and ex- 
pedient, but, as the character of human nature is continually 
aiming at innovation, absolutely requisite to the settled peace 
of the Church, and to the happy and orderly existence of 
Christian Communion." Digest, p. 54. She believes her 
creed " can not be abandoned without abandonment of the 
"Word of God/' p. 54. She enforces it, by solemn vows, 
upon all her ministers, elders, and deacons, pp. 399, 410. 
They who " traduce" it are amenable to discipline, pp. 54, 
55. " Ministers who can not adopt the standards are not 
to be received," p. 57. Those who change their views are 
to " peaceably withdraw," p. 48. Others, who come to her 
from other bodies, are u to teach in the manner required by 
our standards," p. 148. She repudiates any and every doc- 
trine that would "impair the integrity of the Calvinistic 
system," p. 85. She appends the apostles' creed at the end 
of her own, and recommends the Heidelberg Catechism as 
one of a number of reformed symbols, as maintaining " the 
faith once delivered to the saints," p. 56. She expressly 
forbids the teaching of any doctrine " inconsistent w T ith the 
sacred Scriptures as explained and summarily taught in the 
doctrinal standards of our Church" p. 304. As to " human 
deductions and inferences," which Mr. McCune will not 
tolerate, she says " that the whole counsel of God, concern- 
ing all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, 
faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or 
by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scrip- 
ture" Conf. of Faith, ch. 1, sec. 2. She charges the Synod 
" to take effectual care that Presbyteries observe the Con- 
stitution of the Church," p. 191, and warns, in the most 
earnest language, against any one who, " under the specious 
pretense of honoring the sacred Scriptures, would persuade 
you to reject all written or printed creeds, and forms of dis- 
cipline, alleging that those who adopted such, substitute 
them for divine inspiration." Baird's Digest, p. 638. Such 
is the law of the church to which Mr. McCune belongs ; its 
denominational law ; its enactment. He denounces it as an 



u excrescence," a * % sin," a " sectarian oppression." and 
wishes it were out of the way. Po you believe he " sin- 
cerely adopts " our Confession, or c< sincerely approves " our 
government and discipline ? He does no such thing. He 
disparages and traduces both, and inquires, with a triumph- 
ant air, "Did the Apostolic Church demand assent to the Pres- 
byterian Confession of Faith ?' 

Mr. MeCune's theory is as ridiculous as it is dangerous 
and sophistical. He thiuks that, because " the ^vTord of 
God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice " — one 
human deduction, at least, that he accepts — therefore a 
creed declaring and denning what is the sense of that rule 
is unnecessary. A man, not believiug the Bible infallible, 
comes ro Mr. MeCune aud applies tor admission to his 
church. Mr. MeCune repeats the " human deduction " 
that u The Word of God is the only iufallible rule of faith 
and practice." Xo " human deductions." exclaims his 
friend : ** confine yourself to the language of God as com- 
monly received." Mr. MeCune appeals to the naked text. 
Who shall decide now whether the Bible is infallible or 
not ! Or is a decision needed on 'so non-essential a matter? 
If a decision is made, the statement is a " human deduc- 
tion " — a veritable creed. But no human creeds are allow- 
ed, and Mr. MeCune's friend, while accepting the texts, 
understands them in a different way. "Will you receive me 
in Linwood and Mount Lookout, to the glory of God, as 
Christ has received me ? cries his friend. Xot if you don't 
believe the Bible infallible, responds Mr. MeCune. But, 
replies the other, Christ has received me ; I believe in Christ, 
and my walk and conversation are as good as your own. 
Besides you have taught that a man may be a true Chris- 
tian and u not believe the Bible infallible.'' I had forgotten 
that, responds Mr. MeCune ; but come in. you give satis- 
factory scriptural evidence that Christ has received you, 
and though we differ in minor matters, we will extend to 
you forbearance in love," and not enforce our M mere 
peculiarities, contrary to conscience, as a matter of sectarian 
law." Come in. Another steps up for admission, confess- 
ing, however, he does not believe in the true and proper 



[77] 



humanity of Christ. Will you receive me, to the glory of 
God? enquires his second friend. " The Son of God,' 5 says 
Mr. McCune, " became man by taking to himself a true 
body and a reasonable soul." So "human deductions," 
replies his friend; "confine yourself to the language of 
God, as commonly received." But that's what it means, 
says Mr. McCune. So "human modifications," again his 
friend insists. Mr. McCune appeals to the naked texts. 
His friend receives them, but understands thera differently, 
and adds, You have taught, Mr McCune, that a man may 
be a true Christian and not believe in the humanity of 
Christ. Will you receive me ? Christ has received me. 
Come in, says Mr. MCune, I had forgotten that article of 
our belief, but come in ; you give satisfactory scripture 
evidence that Christ has received you, and though we differ 
on non-essentials, we will treat you u with forbearance in 
love." Next comes a friend who has doubts as to the 
Deity of Christ, and whom Mr. McCune refuses to call 
evangelical. Will you receive me, says he, to the glory of 
God, at Linwood and Mount Lookout ? u Christ/*' sav3 
Mr. MCune, " was very God as well as very man." So 
" human deductions," retorts the Unitarian. Christ has re- 
ceived me. I believe the Bible is infallible, but understand 
it differently from you. Mr. McCune appeals to the texts. 
The Unitarian accepts the u language of God." Will you 
receive me ? he cries. You are not M evangelical," says Mr. 
McCune. " Evangelical," exclaims his friend. If you ad- 
mit one who does not believe in the humanity of Christ, 
how refuse me because I do not believe in the Deity of 
Christ ? I believe in Christ without any human deduc- 
tions, or inferences, or modifications. I understand the 
language of God differently from you. I believe with the 
Semi-Arians and three-fourths of the Christian Church in 
the fourth century. Will you receive me? Just at this 
point a Universalist steps up to solicit the same favor of 
admission to the church on the Mount. " They who die 
impenitent are lost forever," says Mr. McCune. No u hu- 
man deductions," cries the Universalist. I believe that 
Christ has received me, and that none will be finally lost. 



[78] 



I accept all your texts ; you need not repeat them. Will 
you receive me ? 

By what right, on what ground, I ask, granting Mr. 
McCune's creed of unexplained texts, can he refuse to re- 
ceive the Unitarian and Universalist, while he cordially 
admits the man who neither believes the Bible is infallible, 
nor that Christ was truly and properly man ? Is it because 
Mr. McCune's human deductions are different from theirs ? 
But he has no right to any deductions in this matter what- 
ever. Is it because they dispute those deductions ? But 
they accept the language of God. Is it because they don't 
accept the language of God as "commonly received?"' 
But neither does he who does not believe the Bible infalli- 
ble, nor the true humanity of Christ, and yet Mr. McCune 
would receive them. Is it because they have no genuine 
New Testament creed ? They all say " the Bible is my 
creed." Is it because they are in a minority ? So was 
Athanasius and the Orthodox of the fourth century. I 
affirm, there is not an errorist in the list of them all, for 
eighteen centuries, that Mr. McCune's creed-theory can 
consistently reject, and I present the phenomenon of Mr. 
McCune as a Presbyterian minister for " ten years," advo- 
cating these views and announcing his purpose to continue 
their advocacy. 

Mr. McCune's whole doctrine about creeds, is the doc- 
trine of every heresiarch from the days of Arius and Pe- 
lagius to the present time. " The Bible is my creed," is 
the standing word in the mouth of every perverter of its 
truth. The Unitarian, the Socinian, the Universalist, the 
Swedenborgian all say, " the Bible is my creed." Every 
one of them will accept the naked texts without what Mr. 
McCune calls " human deductions." Mr. McCune's denial 
of the right of the Church to " enlarge" her creed, is the 
denial of her right to make auy creed at all, for the right 
to make a creed involves the right to enlarge it, and the 
denial of the right to make is the denial of the right to 
enlarge. But what is the nature of this denial ? It is the 
denial of the church's right to make, as a church, a public 
confession of her faith in Christ, for the right to make a 



[79] 



creed is grounded in the right of confession. The Church 
must confess Christ, Mr. McCune will say, but she must 
not confess her faith in Christ, or tell what that faith is. 
She must confess distributively, i. e., by her individual 
members, but not collectively and officially through her 
ministry, except in "the language of God." It is the de- 
nial of her right, as steward of the heavenly mysteries, to 
authoritatively decide, under the influence of a guiding 
Spirit, between what is truth and what is falsehood in the 
public teaching of her ministry, and to authoritatively 
bear witness in her own words, or testify on the stand as a 
witness-bearer does in his own language, what her under- 
standing and belief are concerning the doctrine of God. It 
assails the office of the Church as a public teacher, witness 
and confessor of the truth ; for the relation of the Church 
to the Bible is more than that of the preserver and guardian 
of the volume, and her mission, as a witness and instructor 
to the world, is more than that of a compiler of a few un- 
explained texts, or a minimum quid statement, the lowest and 
least expression on which a sinner may be saved. Her 
office is to furnish the maximum quid of he'r faith, the 
largest possible expression of her religious consciousness 
and belief, and to have relation, in her whole confession 
before men, not merely to the simple conditions of personal 
salvation, but to the whole compass of the divine plan, the 
whole sphere of the heavenly doctrine, and the whole ex- 
tent of her work as a light in the world. The diadem of 
titles that adorn the brow of Christ, he has placed on the 
brow of his church. She is with him, her Divine Lord, 
the light, the witness, the prophet, the priest, the king, the 
life of the world. 

Mr. McCune has not yet learned that the Bible is not a 
creed, and never can be any man's creed, and that this is 
the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as it is of all Evan- 
gelical Protestantism. The case was never yet known in 
history, where a man boasted " the Bible is my creed," 
that the boast was not used as a shield of unevangelical 
views and doctrines, or a cloak for indifferentism and toler- 
ation of error. The Bible is no man's creed, and can be 



[80] 



no man's creed, for the Bible is the expression of God's 
will, whereas a creed is the expression of man's faith. 
Splendidly has Dr. SchafF, following the Reformed Divines, 
said, " The Bible is the word of God to man ; the creed is the 
answer of man to God. The Bible is the only sufficient Rule 
of Faith ; the Creed is the Rule of public doctrine derived 
from the Bible." It is no exaltation of human authority 
over the Divine word, but a subjection of the human under- 
standing and faith to Divine truth, for the cree(} is ever and 
only, in the language of Reformers, mensura mensurata — 
the rule ruled — while the Bible is mensura mensurans — the 
rule ruling. So Dr. Krauth, in his " Conservative Reforma- 
tion." The Rule of Faith is God's voice to us. Faith is 
the hearing of that voice. The Confession is our reply. 
To confess Christ is to confess what is our faith in Him. As 
the creed is not, and can not be, the Rule of Faith, but its 
confession, so the Bible, because it is the Rule of Faith, is, 
of necessity, not its confession. The Bible can no more be 
any man's creed than the stars can be any man's astron- 
omy." This is the doctrine of our standards, underlying 
every expression I have quoted from them. It is not Mr. 
McCune's doctrine. And as to the outcry of Mr. McCune 
against the growth and enlargement of a creed, so far from 
this being a "Popish usurpation," and every argument in 
its defense a " falsity," and the thing itself " an unblushing 
assumption of Divine prerogative," if he will but read the 
Scriptures, he will find not only human-made Christian 
creeds in abundance, but, as Dr. Bannerman has well 
shown, that, even during the Apostolic age, " on three me- 
morable occasions, the Church was compelled to recast and 
exhibit in new forms of language the truth formerly held, and 
compelled to do this because of the perversion to error and 
heresy of the terms formerly employed to set forth the 
truth." The Church of Christ, Vol. L, p. 292. What, 
then, becomes of the assertion of Mr. McCune, contradicted 
by every leaf of history, sacred and profane, that saving 
faith, ipso facto, excludes all fatal heresy, and that as the 
" brief creed " (!) of the Apostles was sufficient to exclude 
it in their day, " so it is sufficient now !" If it is answered 



[81] 



that inspired Apostles might make a creed, but not unin- 
spired men, let Mr. McCune remember that the stream be- 
tween Jerusalem and Gaza beheld the Abyssinian baptized 
by Philip upon the Abyssinian's own human-made creed ; 
and let him further remember that not the fact of inspira- 
tion, but the pressing need of the Church, was the ground 
for creed-enlargement and restatement in Apostolic clays, 
a need existing subsequently as well as then, and its sup- 
ply warranted in every age by Apostolic practice. What 
had become of pure doctrine, on Mr. McCune's principle 
of no human creed, in the fourth century, when the Church, 
to use the words of Jerome, " woke up to find itself Arian?" 
or again, woke up to find itself Pelagian? or, in the six- 
teenth century, woke up to find itself Pagan ? Were Athan- 
« asius, Augustin, Luther, Calvin, " unblushing usurpers of 
the Divine prerogative ?" So teaches a Presbyterian minis- 
ter who subscribes the Westminster Confession. 

Mr. McCune charges the Presbyterian Church, in com- 
mon with all other evangelical denominations, as being an 
oppressor of the conscience, because, by denominational 
law, she recognizes conformity to her standards, and binds 
them on her official ministry. It is a severe charge. But 
whose conscience is oppressed ? Not mine. Not the con- 
science of any who sincerely adopt the standards. Does 
she oppress the conscience of the members of this Presby- 
tery ? Are what Mr. McCune calls her human deductions 
and inferences "contrary" to the word of God? She de- 
clares they are " agreeable to the word or God," and Mr. 
McCune has professed sincerely to adopt them as such. Has 
he yet to learn that what is deduced by good and necessary 
consequence from Scripture is Scriptural? Concede, if you 
will, that all other creeds are an oppression of the con- 
science, is our own amenable to that charge? The funda- 
mentals of the Presbyterian Church are her creed, her stan- 
dards, and nothing less, all professedly adopted and ap- 
proved by Mr.McCune. Agai n, I ask, whose conscience is op- 
pressed? The allegation betrays the fact of Mr. McCune's 
practical and avowed abandonment of the distinctive Creed, 
Government, and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church,, 



[82] 



while yet remaining in her bosom, an abandonment began 
years ago. The Presbyterian Church repels the libel from 
the lips of her own son, to whom she has yielded almost 
boundless license, that she is an oppressor of the conscience. 
Never once has she interfered with his right of private 
judgment, even when insisting on her own rights of au- 
thoritative instruction, and on her right to interfere and re- 
* strain his public conduct. Never once has she said to any 
man, you shall adopt my creed, you shall submit to my gov- 
ernment. What she has said is, if you can honestly and 
sincerely adopt and approve the Standards, then welcome 
here. If you can not, then let us remain apart in peace. 
The applicant for ministerial office can find another home 
more congenial among the people of God. But if the 
proposal is accepted, she demands that good faith shall be , 
kept, and no "Trojan Horse" introduced within her walls 
to betray her. Mr. McCune pleads rights of conscience. 
Eights of conscience are not rights of membership. Eights 
of conscience are not rights to profess one thing and 
practice another. He pleads the right of private judgment. 
The right of private judgment is not the right of belonging 
to this Presbytery and advocating " no creed " and a polity 
at war with our Constitution. Detraction is not a right of 
private judgment. The Arian's right of private judgment 
gives him no right here. A man may have the right of private 
judgment and not be able to tell the difference between 
Presbyterianism and Popery. He may be a simpleton. 
The possession of the right does not confer the thing. A 
beggar may have a right to be rich and a foolish man to be 
wise, and yet the one remain poor, and the other a simple- 
ton, all their days. A man may have the right to be a Pres- 
byterian and yet be a Cardinal or Pope. Does the right of 
private judgment make him a Presbyterian, or does it give 
him a right to profess to be what he is not? or to be where 
he has no right to be? The right to membership in this 
Presbytery does not rest on the right of private judgment, 
nor on the right of conscience. It rests upon sincere and 
honest adoption and approval of her Standards, and upon 
the zealous and faithful maintaining the peace, purity, and 



[83] 



unity of the Church. It rests upon the solemnity of a per- 
sonal vow that the man is a Presbyterian by conviction, and 
in heart, and not a mere wearer of the name, one-third Pres- 
byterian, one-third Papal, and one-third Independent in his 
theories. A Presbyterian minister is a man whose Rule of 
Faith is the Word of God, and whose creed is the West- 
minster Standards. Is this Mr. McCune's description? I 
aver that if the ministry of the Presbyterian Church were 
allowed to teach and to do as Mr. McCune has been 
allowed to teach and to do, in reference to the question of 
creeds alone, and to traduce the denominational enactments 
and laws of their own Church as " sectarian," and as an op- 
pression of the conscience, and publicly recommend the 
"striking out" of every thing that ail other Christians 
"can not see to be law in Scripture," a generation would 
not pass away until the treacherous hand of organic union, 
preferring Union before Truth, had laid it in its grave. 
Already, by public utterance, he remands to what be calls 
" the broad and free domain of Christian liberty," under 
her no-creed system, every thing distinctively settled in the 
Presbyterian Standards, as to " man's relation to God's 
sovereignty, forms of making religious profession, modes of 
worship, subjects of Baptism, methods of organization, kinds 
and functions of Church-officers." He is looking for "greater 
light." Is this loyalty to the Presbyterian Church ? Is this 
maintenance of her doctrine and order? " Strike out" all 
that, and how much is left of the Standards ? I pass to the 
fourth Specification. 

SPECIFICATION IV. 

Vows of Ordination. 

This Specification asserts the teaching of Mr. McCune to 
be that Presbyterian ministers, under solemn vows to study 
the peace, unity, and purity of the Church, are yet free to 
advocate views antagonistic to those they have vowed to 
maintain, and still remain in their ecclesiastical connexion, 
while they who object, should themselves retire from the 
body, if not content to indulge such liberty. The ever- 
varying axis of rotation for elders, ministers, and deacons, 



[84] 



upon such a principle, would reverse the ecclesiastical poles 
themselves. The ecclesiastical orbit, under such a theory, 
may be a circle, an ellipse, a parabola, or an infinitely un- 
returning hyperbola, and the minister himself become, in 
doctrine, like the comet-forms that sail and sweep the in- 
terplanetary spaces. According to Mr. McCune, a Presby- 
terian minister is at liberty, after his ordination, to hold 
" any views " he held before his ordination, and advocate 
the same. His doctrine is that ministerial vows are not 
binding. Under the manifestly sophistical form of expres- 
sion, " the Church only asks men, at their ordination, what 
their present views are, and never pledges them not to change 
their views" he teaches that every Presbyterian minister 
may face about to the full extent of his own variations 
and yet remain in the body for the sake of indorsement 
and good standing. The clearly implied assertion is that 
such liberty is consistent with ministerial obligations. He 
suggests to an objector to his " views," " course," " scheme," 
" project," and " aim," that the proper solution of the objec- 
tion is for the objector himself to retire. He proposes, 
with a cool temperature, that his name " shall stand on the 
roll of the Presbytery " as long as he is in its bounds. He 
declares that to ask a man not to advocate what he, an in- 
dividual, believes to be God's truth, is to ask him to dis- 
obey God, and that if Presbytery requires him to renounce 
opinions and ways destructive in her judgment to the 
peace, unity, and purity of the Church, she will sit " in the 
Temple of God," and show herself " as God " over his 
conscience. He announces definitely for all time that he 
will never submit to such " usurpation of the Divine pre- 
rogative," and informs the court that he " proposes " still 
to advocate his peculiar views. He pleads the prestige 
his doctrines have won from the official circulation of them 
ordered by the Synod of Cincinnati in 1870, the first Synod 
after the Eeunion, and seeks shelter behind that body as 
the ecclesiastical indorser of his Organic Union principles. 
He pleads the countenance and concurrence of this Pres- 
bytery. He says : " It is susceptible of proof that the ad- 
vocacy of these Christian Union doctrines has been with 



[85] 



the knowledge and by the permission of the Presbytery of 
Cincinnati, and by the consent and with the co-operation 
of the Synod of Cincinnati, and that this advocacy is not 
in violation of any Presbyterian law whatever." Collateral 
"No. 4. Such is the ground on which he establishes his- 
claim to teach and preach his peculiar views, and advocate 
their necessary and legitimate consequences. Briefly stated,, 
his doctrine is that ordination vows do not bind Presbyter- 
ian ministers, while remaining under them, not to become 
anti-Presbyterian, nor to abstain from the public proclama- 
tion of their new departures from the faith and order of the 
Church. 

It is not the first time such license has been proclaimed 
in the world, but it is the first time, in the history of the 
Presbyterian Church, that any Presbyterian minister has 
ever dared publicly to utter such sentiments and remain un- 
challenged either by his Presbytery or Synod for " ten 
years." It is a feature of our times. It is non-enforce- 
ment, the result of the new non-excluding law of organ- 
ization. 

The vows of Mr. McCune are solemn and unambiguous. 
They are the vows of every Presbyterian minister, elder, 
and deacon — a solemn covenant between himself and the 
whole Presbyterian Church, and every individual officer in 
it, before which he stands charged to-day for breach of that 
covenant, Christ, his brethren, the Church, and the world, 
being witnesses. The vows of Mr. McCune in the United 
Presbyterian Church, of which he was a member, and 
which he took, expressly bound him to " adhere to the 
Westminster Standards, so long as he remained in that 
body. The vows of our own church bind to the same ad- 
herence every one of it3 ministers. Their education is to 
this end, as also their examinations, trials, licensure, ordi- 
nation, and installation. They not only declare that they 
" sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith as con- 
taining the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures," and that they " approve of the government and dis- 
cipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States," 
but they vow solemnly before Q-od and the Presbytery to 



[86] 



" study the peace, unity, and purity of the Church," and to 
be " zealous and faithful " in maintaining the same. Di- 
gest, pp. 399, 410, 411. All this, replies Mr. McCune, does 
not involve continued adherence to views professed at the 
time of ordination. He claims that " any views " a man 
may have entertained "before " he comes into the Church, 
he has a right to hold and advocate after he comes in." 
{Spec. VI, Proof 3.) Moderator and brethren, all this 
pleading is worse than a quibble. It is evasion and bad 
faith. It is inconsistent with honor, truth, the precepts of 
the gospel, and loyalty to the Presbyterian Church. True, 
the Church does not pledge any minister " not to change his 
views" but she does pledge him, in his vows of ordination, 
to "study" her "peace, unity, and purity," to be " zealous 
and faithful in maintaining" these, as also in his vow to 
" submit " to her authority, to respect her " denominational 
laws," and her " organic enactments," which not only re- 
quire the teaching of her doctrine and polity, but forbid the 
teaching of anything contrary thereto. He is not at lib- 
erty publicly to exclaim against her distinctive tenets and 
laws as sinful sectarianism, and deny her right of distinctive 
existence. He is not at liberty to advocate the dropping 
off of her Presbyterian peculiarities for the sake of " Or- 
ganic Union." They are not " mere peculiarities;" they are 
vital to her system and to the truth of God. E"o. Vows 
do not bind any man " not to change " his views, but a change 
of views does bind every honorable man to ask a re- 
lease from the vows he took to advocate the old views he 
has now abandoned, and not to advocate the new ones he 
has embraced. Apply Mr. McCune's views of liberty to 
the oaths of Federal and State officers to support the Na- 
tional Constitution, and to our Theological Professors to 
maintain the Standards of the Church, and then imagine 
the result ! The doctrine is treason in both cases. It was 
for the purpose of binding to adherence and non-departure 
from sound doctrine our Standards were adopted by the 
fathers of the Presbyterian Church in this land. It was in 
the overture of John Thompson, a sire, for aught I know, 
of the respected elder you have put on this Committee of 



[87] 



Prosecution, and at a time when the infant Church had no 
written Constitution, in 1728, preliminary to the Adopting 
Act, that he besought the General Synod " to publicly and 
authoritatively adopt the Westminster Confession and. Cat- 
echisms," and then " to oblige every Presbytery within 
their bounds to oblige every candidate for the ministry to 
acknowledge, coram Presbyterio, the said Confession of 
Faith, and next, " to promise not to teach or preach anything 
contrary to it." Baird's Digest, 29. Did this mean non- 
adherence ? The Constitution was adopted and the vows 
were taken. Is contemporaneous exposition an authority? 
Is the uniform practice of the Church an authority ? ISTon- 
adherence! What means the act of 1758, "strictly enjoin- 
ing it on all our members and probationers for the ministry 
that they preach and teach according to the form of sound 
words in said Confession and Catechism, and avoid and oppose 
all errors contrary thereto" and if their consciences will not 
permit them to allow any matter determined by the major 
vote of the Presbyterian Church, to " peacably withdraw." 
Digest, p. 48. What means the solemn pledge which, in 
1819, the Presbyterian Church imposed upon her Theolog- 
ical Professors, to whom she was about to intrust the train- 
ing of her ministry? Was it consistent with non-adher- 
ence ? Does it allow Professors to drop off the distinctive 
features of Presbyterian doctrine and polity in their in- 
struction, or encourage her ministry in a disorganizing 
course she would not herself tolerate for a moment ? I 
will repeat it. " In the presence of Cod and of the Direc- 
tors of this Seminary, I do solemnly and ex animo adopt, 
receive, and subscribe the Confession of Faith and Cate- 
chisms of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America as the Confession of my Faith, or as a summary 
and just exhibition of that system of religious belief which 
is contained in Holy Scripture, and therein revealed by 
God to man for his salvation ; and I do solemnly, ex animo, 
profess to receive the Form of Government of said Church 
as agreeable to the inspired oracles. And I do solemnly 
promise and engage not to inculcate, teach, or insinuate 
anything which shall appear to me to contradict or contra- 



[88] 



vene, either directly or impliedly, anything taught in the 
said Confession of Faith or Catechism, nor to oppose any 
of the fundamental principles of Presbyterian Church Gov- 
ernment, while I shall continue a Professor in this Semi- 
nary." Digest, p. 377. Why bind her instructors so 
strictly unless that she might also have a ministry trained, 
without equivocation, to the faithful maintenance of her 
Standards? What means the act of 1825, that " ministers 
who manifested a decided hostility to ecclesiastical creeds, 
confessions, and formularies," shall also " withdraw V Di- 
gest, p. 55. Does it mean non-adherence? What means 
the vested right of the Presbytery, inscribed in the Consti- 
tution, " to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the 
purity or peace of the Church," i. e., which conflict with 
the solemn vows to study and maintain that purity and 
peace, in matters of doctrine and order, if it does not mean 
adherence to the Standards ? What means that other pos- 
itive obligation on the Synod to compel the Presbyteries to 
" preserve " and enforce the Constitution, which is the sole 
bond of our union ; and that other of the Assembly to 
deal with every Presbytery and Synod derelict herein ? Di- 
gest, pp. 144, 191, 218. But I forbear to expand the law 
references on this point. 

The doctrine of Mr. McCune as to non-adherence, with 
liberty to remain in the body, is twin-sister of his doctrine 
of non-enforcement. It is disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
Church, intensified by the lordly utterance, "It is useless to 
make any intimations to me on this subject. I propose that 
my name shall stand on the roll of this Presbytery so long 
as I remain in Cincinnati or vicinity." 

One other remark germane to this point. It is the habit 
of the advocates of so-called " liberty " in teaching the Pres- 
byterian faith and order, to plead that in their vows of or- 
dination they only subscribe to a " system " of doctrine as 
" contained " in the confession. The emphasis is put upon 
the word 44 system." Mr. McCune has used it abundantly. 
It is a grievous misfortune for Mr. McCune in the first place 
that even this shelter for his new doctrines will not avail 
him, for he holds that denominations, as such, are " essen- 



[89] 

tially sinful," and have no scriptural right either to a dis- 
tinctive " system " of doctrine or to a distinctive existence. 
Upon his own showing, he has no right even to take a vow 
to maintain a distinctive "system" of doctrine, let alone 
objecting to the doctrines of the system ! He is utterly op- 
posed to " human deductions," system or no system. To 
plead that he will maintain the distinctive system he de- 
clares has no right to exist, because the denomination it 
represents has none, is simply to convict himself of self- 
contradiction. If he maintains the " system " has a right 
to exist, then the denomination built on that system has a 
right to exist also. If he maintains the denomination, as 
such, has no right to exist, then the system goes along with 
it. Either way the interpleader is vain. 

But, granting Mr. McCune the benefit of his contradic- 
tion, how can ordination vows bind to maintain the " sys- 
tem " of doctrine, and not bind to maintain the "doctrines 
of the system?" A " system of doctrine" is a science of 
doctrine, all whose parts are organically related, each one 
of whose doctrines is necessary to the integrity of the sys- 
tem, and all which are inseparably linked with the funda- 
mental principles and facts on which it rests. The system 
of doctrine in its integrity is the sum total of the doctrines 
of the system organically bound together.* To explain 
away the doctrines, is to impair the integrity of the system. 
To impair the integrity of the doctrines is to impair the in- 
tegrity of the system. How can Mr. McCune advocate the 
doctrines he holds, and yet claim that he holds to the sys- 
tem of doctrine, and so keep his vows inviolate ? It is im- 
possible. If, by non-adherence, you take away one doctrine, 
you may take away two ; if two, you may take away ten ; 

* It was argued, and confidently asserted, by Mr. McCune and many 
others in Presbytery, that the last twelve chapters of our Confession do not 
belong to, and make no part of our "system of doctrine," and that Dr. 
Charles Hodge, of Princeton, so teaches, in the Princeton Review; and 
that, therefore, Mr. McCune's peculiar views about the Nature of the Church, 
the Covenant of God with believers, Infant Baptism, Infant Church-mem- 
bership, the binding and perpetual obligation of the Sacraments, etc., etc., 
did not impair the integrity of our system 1 I deem it but just to the name 
of Dr. Hodge, to append this note, by way of protest against the perversioa 
of his words so persistently made in order to find a shelter and defense for 
Mr. McCune. T. H. S. 



[90] 



if ten, the whole. Can a man who denies that a plurality 
of congregations, organically bound under one ecclesiastical 
rule, is " a church," maintain the integrity of our system of 
polity ? He denies the polity itself. Can a man who holds 
that the " body of Christ " is the " visible church," that infants 
of believers are not members of the church, that infant bap- 
tism as a covenant transaction is to be repudiated, that un- 
baptized persons may become members of the church, that 
a man may be a christian and not believe either the infalli- 
bility of the Bible or proper humanity of Christ, or who 
remands to the broad domain of liberty, " modes of worship, 
subjects of baptism, methods of organization, kinds and 
functions of church officers," and denies the scriptural right 
of Presbyterianism, as such, can such an one, when called 
to account, put in the interpleader, Oh ! I did not bind my- 
self " not to change my views," I vowed only to maintain 
the system of Presbyterian doctrine, not everything in the 
confession? Moderator, he neither holds the system of 
doctrine, nor the doctrines of the system. And it is a vain 
excuse to plead conscience,j)rivate judgment, and a liberty 
" unchallenged " for a decade of years. I can not forbear 
to quote the admirable words of Dr. Krauth on this subject, 
" If a man," says he, " were examined as a candidate for a 
chair of astronomy in a university, and were asked, ' What 
is your astronomical system?' and were to answer, 4 1 ac- 
cept the teaching of the stars,' the reply would be, 6 You 
may think you do ; so does the man who is sure that the 
stars move round the world, and that they are not orbs, but 
gimlet holes to let the glory through ! We wish to know 
what you hold the teaching of the stars to be? Do you re- 
ceive, as in harmony with them, the results reached by Co- 
pernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Laplace, and Herschel, 
or do you think the world one great flat, and the sun and 
moon mere pendants to it?' 4 Gentlemen,' replies the in- 
dependent investigator, ' the theories of astronomers are 
human-made systems — man-made theories. I go out every 
night on the hills and look at the stars, as God made them, 
through a hole in my blanket, with my own good eyes, not 
with a man-made telescope or fettered by a man-made 
theory ; and I believe in the stars and in what they teach 



[91] 



me, but if I were to say or write what they teach me, that 
would be a human-made creed, and I am opposed to all creeds/ 
6 Yery well,' reply the examiners, ' we wish you a good pair 
of eyes, and feel it unnecessary to go any further. If you 
are unwilling to confess your faith, we will not tax your 
conscience with the inconsistency of teaching that faith, nor 
tax our own with the hazard of authorizing you to set 
forth, in the name of the stars, your own ignorant assump- , 
tions about them." Conservative Reformation, p. 167. 
Think of an astronomer pledged to teach the Newtonian 
system, pleading Mr. McCune's argument ! Think of a 
Presbyterian minister pledged to teach the " old ancestral 
Calvinism," the Standards, " pure and simple," the Calvin- 
istic system, asserting that he does teach that " system,'' 
and so keeps his ordination vows, while yet pleading "the 
Bible is my creed," "I have a right to change my views," 
and still remain unchallenged on the roll of the Presbytery I 
Were commercial business to be transacted on such inter- 
pretations of promises to pay, the whole community would 
be wrecked. There is not a business man in the world 
who would loan to another an amount of money, under such 
a liberty of interpretation, and ever expect one dollar of it 
to return to his hands. I pass to the fifth specification. 

SPECIFICATION V. 

Plurality of Official Membership. 
This specification reveals a new planet in the ecclesias- 
tical heavens, and one of baneful omen. It is an admitted 
fact that every planet in our system affects the motions of 
every other planet, and the same is true of every denomi- 
nation. When Uranus was discovered, it was found there 
was something still affecting its motions, and the sugges- 
tion was made that a planet beyond itself was in existence. 
Thanks to the observations of Adams and Le Verrier, and 
the superior Berlin star-map, Neptune was discovered 
whirling his way in the skies, only two billion seven hun- 
dred thousand miles away from the central sun. The dis- 
turbances of our Presbyterian planet here have awakened 
similar suspicions, and all eyes have been on the Lookout 
to discover, if possible, the reason of the perturbations. 



[92] 



Your Committee of Prosecution announce that a new de- 
nomination exists, much nearer to ours than Neptune to 
the sun, and that its singular and contradictory law of 
motion is this, that it moves in the orbits of every other 
while yet claiming to move in one of its own. "Anti- 
denomination" is its denomination. "Official Plurality" 
is its law. It is an ecclesiastical phenomenon. Never 
before, in history, was such a thing known — never before 
in morals. It is an absorber and disorganizer ; an absorber 
in that it feeds upon all the rest — a disorganizer in that it 
denies their right to exist, accounting all creeds but its 
own heretical and schismatical. It moves in the hazy at- 
mosphere of " Organic Church Union." One of its chief 
creators in these parts is Mr. McCune. If not a creation 
ex nihilo, it is a development ex materia prwexistente, and is 
claimed to be the Darwinian fittest to survive. The stride 
of progress is immense, wider than the steps of Homer's 
gods in space. The inhabitants of all other church planets 
are called upon to keep one foot in their own denomina- 
tion and plant the other in the new, claiming still that they 
are lawful denizens of both. If any choose to make the 
full spring at once, all well ; but dismissed or undismissed, 
it makes no difference. For private members and public 
ministers, two consciences, two private judgments, two con- 
flicting obligations, two communions, two creeds, two op- 
posing jurisdictions, two antagonizing denominations, plu- 
rality of membership and plurality of office. This is the 
doctrine publicly advocated by Mr. McCune. It is the law 
of a strange progeny, bad in ethics, self-ruinous in prac- 
tice, condemned in Scripture. It is the central device of 
the new movement whereby its advocates hope to forestall 
the recoil of their own principle upon themselves; an in- 
genious hold-on-and-let-go expedient of defense against the 
reproach of disorganization ; a last-born plea wherewith to 
refute or parry the charge, that while professing to oppose 
all distinctive denominations they are caught in the very 
act of adding one more to the list. In the case of Mr. 
McCune, it is the profession of adherence while practicing 
non-adherence to the Presbyterian faith and order — a 
quicksand foundation on which to build his claims to 



[93] 



remain on the roll of his Presbytery while still teaching 
that it is an unauthorized and extra-scriptural body. 
The mystery of the organization of the Linwood and 
Mt. Lookout church of undismissed church members, and 
the equal mystery of the claim of Mr. McCune, as an en- 
rolled member of the new anti-denominational association 
of ministers and independent churches, to not sever his 
denominational relations, is completely solved. This double 
back-acting and forward-acting motion at one and the same 
step is the law of the new enterprise and a fact in eccle- 
siology unknown before. 

The fact of a new organization is abundantly evinced 
by the proofs under the specification. The extensive ap- 
peal signed by Mr. McCune and his co-laborators in organic 
union, and made to "all the Christian ministers and churches 
iu North America," to begin the organization of the New 
Testament Church, is now in court, and on your table. The 
evidence of the call and action of three general conventions 
at New York, Cincinnati, and Suffolk, Ya., in this interest, 
over one of which Mr. McCune presided as chairman, is 
here. The additional evidence of organization and subscrip- 
tion to the " New Basis/' is taken from Mr. McCune's own 
paper, the work done in that behalf being left for consider- 
ation under the Second Charge. The recognition of the 
Texas " plan of organization " as one with the Cincinnati 
and Suffolk movement, establishes the fact of " organiza- 
tion "beyond a question. You will observe carefully the 
dates, and the progress of the work : first, the "Address 
to all Christian Ministers and Churches in North America," 
signed by Mr. McCune and others, Oct., 1874, page 13 of 
the case ; second, the three general conventions respectively 
at New York, Cincinnati, and Suffolk, Ya., Oct., 1873, 
1874, and 1875, page 15 of the case ; third, the language of 
the Christian Unity, resumed under the triple editorship of 
Dr..Wellons, Mr. McCune and Mr. Melish, saying, "The 
Christian Unity begins its career (again) with fixed purposes 
and aims, etc.," and "we must organize, band ourselves together 
as ministers and churches, etc.," Aug. 1875, p. 15 of the case; 
fourth, the response of Mr. McCune to Mr. Thrall admit- 
ting the "organizing by actual visible oneness," Aug. 1875, page 



[94] 

15 of the case ; fifth, the actual, visible organization of Lin- 
wood and Mt. Lookout Church, and the publication of its 
basis to the world, Dec. 1875, pp. 14 and 27 of the case. 
The "project," scheme and "aim," and actual "organiza- 
tion" are beyond a peradventure, both as to a General As- 
sociation of Ministers and Churches, and as ton particular, 
actual and visible organization, where all evangelical Chris- 
tians were to be received, of every denomination, the Gos- 
pel preached, candidates trained for the ministry, and ministers 
sent out into the world. I have established the fact. I have 
given the data of the approach and visible outstanding exist- 
ence of the new planet in our hemisphere. The remainder 
of the testimony I need not go over. The "initial step" 
of the visible embodiment of the organic union principles 
in the new anti-denominational denomination is expressly 
shown to be the actual reception of Christians into a sepa- 
rate, independent and particular society. 

The law of this organization is as already described. 
Ministers, dismissed or undismissed from their old denom- 
inational relations, are received. "Any T minister who has 
adopted this Basis, but does not deem it expedient to sever ex- 
isting denominational relations, shall, at his oion request, be en- 
rolled, notwithstanding." Such is the law. " Notwithstand- 
ing " what ? Notwithstanding his solemn vows and obli- 
gations to the denomination where he belongs: Signature to 
the Basis, and enrollment, constitute him, ipso facto, a stand- 
ing member in the new Association. But signatures and 
enrollments have already been made. The organization, 
the " banding ourselves together," with the " Basis," as a 
bond of union, is a historical fact. "What shall I call this 
law of plurality, of individual ministerial membership in 
two antagonizing organizations — this double allegiance, gen- 
uine in the one case and spurious in the other ? Will historic 
congregational " usage," or Dexter, or the Boston platform, 
cover it? Not exactly. Is it the new Oberlin departure 
of 1871 abandoning its Westminster banner precisely for 
such a thing as this ? Then we know indeed what the char- 
acter of that new departure is. Is it anarchy ? Will Pres- 
byterian usage cover it ? Not exactly. The same limita- 
tions are found here also. Will " Independent Presbyter- 



[95] 



ianism " cover it ? Not exactly. The thing is a phenomenon. 
What shall I call it, this advocacy of plural and antagonizing 
responsibilities, the profession of loyalty and sincerity in all, 
while the last aim at the ruin of the first ? When I say it 
is a " Trojan Horse " introduced into this Presbytery, I say 
all that need be said. The moral character of that trans- 
action speaks for itself. " Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes! " 
When I affirm that such a law of double and conflicting 
jurisdiction is advocated by a Presbyterian minister, with 
the express aim of depreciating the distinctive peculiarities 
of his own denomination, I affirm that it is morally wrong, 
and no ingenuity can harmonize it with an honest and sin- 
cere adoption of our Standards. It is disloyalty to the 
Presbyterian Church. Whether in the case of ministers or 
private members, to act upon such a principle is to break 
covenant, and violate both ordination and sacramental 

VOW T S. 

But this claim to double-membership, whether official or 
private, is ridiculous, as well as morally wrong. If a com- 
municant may be a member of two churches at the same 
time, the same principle will allow him to be a member of 
three, and of as many more as he pleases, provided, always, 
the new divine law of organization, "Receive ye one an- 
other,'' is understood by all according to Mr. McCune's 
interpretation ! If a minister may belong to two different 
organizations at the same time, he may belong to a dozen. 
If he may join the new organic union organization of 
" Christian Union Churches," he may become a standing 
member in the house of Bishops, one in the Methodist 
Conference as well, one in the Baptist Association too, and 
a member of the Presbyterian General Assembly besides. 
There is no limit. His blooming honors thick upon him, 
he may run and radiate through the whole circle of denomi- 
nations, provided, always, they would 66 receive" him, as he 
would "receive'' them. If ejected from one, his standing 
would be good in all the rest. Besides, once in, they have 
no right to exclude him. He can remain on their roll. It 
is such a privilege Mr. McCune advocates — the privilege 
that a United States senator should be a member of the 
British Parliament, of the Eeichsrath of King William, 



[96] 



and of the French Chambers at the same time ; the privi- 
lege that the autocrat of all the Russias should be Presi- 
dent of the United States, King of Italy, Sultan of Turkey, 
and Hospodar of Bosnia, all under different oaths, laws, 
and governments, and yet advocating allegiance and obe- 
dience to all at the same time. True, he has the prevision 
that under the operation of such a rule, denominations 
would soon disappear ; but, meanwhile, till that millennium 
comes, this plurality of contrary membership is to be in- 
dulged, in hope that thus the Savior's prayer may soon be 
answered, the world converted, and denominations be ready 
to vanish away. 

But the Presbyterian Church will not allow this duplicity 
of membership, self-contradictory and suicidal to the church, 
its individual members and ministers together. Ministerial 
and sacramental vows, moral consistency, covenant obliga- 
tions, the already quoted organic enactments of the church, 
which I need not repeat, are all against it. In the case of 
private members, "willful absence" from the regular minis- 
trations to attendance on which they are solemnly pledged, 
the absenting themselves from and refusing to support the 
church to which they belong, "is a disciplinable offense? 
and upon its occurrence discipline is enjoined." Digest, 
p. 494. The confession of a " change of views" is no de- 
fense against the sin of " having violated covenant by con- 
tinued absence from the ordinances of the church." p. 494. 
Attendance upon another church is no excuse, for the de- 
linquent is still a member. The plea that he has joined 
another church, without dismission, in the region where 
his own exists, is not allowed, for it is a disorderly with- 
drawal and an irregular connection. " No church member 
can ever properly cease to be such, except by death, exclu- 
sion, a regular dismission, or an orderly withdrawing to join 
some other denomination." p. 625. " To withdraw from a 
use of his privileges as a member, either by irregularly con- 
necting himself with another denomination, or by going to a 
distant part of the world, etc., without making known his 
removal to the church session, and asking for a certificate 
for the purpose of enjoying occasional communion else- 
where, or of dismission to join some other church, is itself a 



[97] 



censurable violation of the principles of church fellowship, 
and may infer suspension from its privileges." pp. 625, 626. 
The law of our church is very clear, and its application to 
the principle and case before us is inevitable. For church 
members to join another organization without dismission 
from the church to which they belong, so absenting them- 
selves willfully from the organization and ministrations 
they are under covenant obligations to support, is an evil 
example, a breaking of covenant, a censurable violation of 
the principles of church fellowship, an offense upon which 
discipline is enjoined, and may infer suspension from the 
church. These are some of the " denominational laws" 
and ''organic enactments" Mr. McCune would like to have 
out of the way. Double-membership is not allowed. If 
the parents do this, what will the children do? What kind 
of a church shall we have the next generation? 

In the case of a public minister, the argument is a for- 
tiori. If a private church member may not be guilty of 
such license, much more a Presbyterian minister may not 
encourage him in the same. If the Standards of the church 
condemn it, the officer under vows to maintain the Stand- 
ards may not be a party to the propagation of doctrines at 
variance herewith, nor a party to the censurable irregular- 
ity. If a private individual may not assume a double- 
membership, much more a public officer under vows to 
exercise discipline in such cases may not himself be guilty 
of advocating or doing the same. If not in the member, 
much more not in the minister. The Presbyterian Church 
orders that any of her ministers who have joined another 
ecclesiastical association or another denomination are to be 
"stricken from the roll, if not chargeable with fundamental 
error in doctrine or immorality in life." Digest, pp. 109, 
620. She will not allow ministers of another association 
to belong to her own at the same time, nor her own to 
belong to another. Others who come to her fold must 
bring letters of dismission and good standing. Plurality 
of official membership in different denominations she will 
not permit. The plea of " non-withdrawal" from her own 
body, while uniting with another, she will not tolerate, and 



[98] 



could not, for it is the very gravamen and core of the trans- 
gression itself. It is a plea for double and conflicting juris- 
diction, double and conflicting allegiance, under creeds, 
laws, vows, and obligations mutually contradictory, and 
destructive of her peace, unity, and purity as a church ; 
and putting out of sight altogether the question of a pas- 
toral relation to a particular church " outside of her juris- 
diction," the personal presence in Presbytery and non- with- 
drawal of a minister, himself under two distinct allegiances 
— one Presbyterian, the other Independent — mutual con- 
tradiction in polity, a regular officer in one denomination 
standing and claiming the right to be enrolled in another, 
is no argument in his vindication. It is the very substance 
and essence of the offense itself, making the violation of 
obligations of loyalty to the distinctive faith and order of 
his church its own justification. He says to the one organ- 
ization, "I'm on your side," and to the other organization, 
" I 'm on your side." He can not be true to both. Plu- 
rality of official relation here is insincerity. He can not 
sincerely "adopt," "approve," and "maintain" the dis- 
tinctive faith and order of the Presbyterian Church with a 
good conscience or " singleness of heart," either toward 
G-od or man. Such double dealing, were it generally ac- 
cepted as a rule of action by our ministers, would bring the 
Presbyterian Church, first to contempt and at last to ruin. 
It is the natural fruit and legitimate consequence of the 
newly invented "divine law of organization." The or- 
ganic unity that gives birth to a principle like this is sim- 
ply organic duplicity. The tree is bad. It is known by 
its fruits. Men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of 
thistles. 

I pass to the sixth specification. 

SPECIFICATION VI. 

Terms of Ministerial Membership. 

The doctrine charged in this specification is that no 
Presbytery has any right to exclude from its official mem- 
bership any Christian minister, no matter to what denomi- 



[99] 



nation he belongs, but that every Christian minister is, ipso 
facto, entitled to a seat in any Presbytery, to a pastorate in any 
church, and to any position of office and trust the church 
may have to offer. This title is said to rest upon a " right " 
to official membership. This "right" is said to rest upon 
the simple fact that a man is a " Christian minister" His 
call to the ministry is assumed as the ground of the right, 
and no other test of ministerial qualification is allowed, 
save assent to a " few leading truths," " expressed in God's 
own language," without any " human deductions " or " in- 
ferences" therefrom, or any human " modifications." The 
simple fact that he assents to a few unexplained texts, as 
his creed, is a Christian man, and wants to be in the Pres- 
byterian Church, is enough. He must be admitted to the 
Presbytery. If he is an Independent, denying our ascend- 
ing series of courts, and the right of one ecclesiastical rule 
over many congregations organically bound together, and 
the right of such organization to be called " a church," he 
is nevertheless to be admitted. If he is a Prelate, asserting 
apostolical succession, three orders in the ministry, repu- 
diating the parity of the clergy, and disputing the ordi- 
nation of his brethren, he must be admitted. If he is a 
Lutheran, proclaiming consubstantiation and the ubiquity 
of Christ's body, he must be admitted. If he is a Baptist, 
denying infant baptism, infant church membership, and 
asserting immersion, he must be admitted. If he is a 
Quaker, repudiating external sacraments as signs and seals 
of the covenant of grace, he must be admitted. If he is a 
Semi-Pelagian or Arminian, the one advocating a theology 
that starts from the principle of human agency and only 
introducing the Divine as a synergistic help to the sinner, 
the other advocating a theology that denies the absolute 
election of men to eternal life, and affirming their salvation 
only on the condition of foreseen good works and faith, 
both must be admitted. Apollinarian, admitting that 
Christ had a human body and soul, but denying that he had 
a human spirit; Nestorian, sundering the natures of Christ 
and teaching a double personality; Eutychian, absorbing 
the human in the Divine and compounding a new person- 



[100] 

ality — all must be admitted. The Oalvinistic Church has 
no right to distinctively exist as a separate denomination. 
The distinctive tenets of faith and order, achieved after 
long conflict, consecrated in the Westminster Standards, 
and bound upon the official ministry of our church, are to 
be remanded to the category of indifference because the 
" new divine law of organization " is grounded in a text 
that relates to things indifferent. In other words, and pre- 
cisely, denominations are " essentially sinful," and should 
be abolished, the Presbyterian with the rest, the Court of 
Christ turned into a plain of Shinar with a new Babel as 
its tower, no man surrendering anything, each one enjoying 
free speech, the rights of conscience accorded and exer- 
cised to the last breath, a " Concordia Discors" of mutual 
" forbearance in love," a " Campus Martins " of conflicting 
beliefs and policies, an amphitheater of belligerent priest- 
hood, anointed for the combat, but not with Aaron's oil, 
"brethren" dwelling together in " Organic Unity," where no 
dew of Hermon descends, and where the Lord commands no 
blessing, but spiritual death forevermore. Behold ! Is it 
" good and pleasant," this Organic Church Union ? It is 
built on a " new divine law of organization," which en- 
titles every Christian minister, ipso facto, to a seat in any 
Presbytery or conference in Christendom. It is like the 
under world, the Grave, as Blair describes it : 

'"Tis here all meet : 
The shivering Icelander and sunburnt Moor, 
Men of all climes that never met before, 
And of all creeds." 

Its name is " Legion," for it is many. Multitude is its 
motto. Indifference its creed. It is the toleration of the 
Grave. It is the warfare of the shades. It is the extrava- 
ganza of supreme folly. 

Have the committee misrepresented the defendant? 
Eead the proofs. Eead the bold declaration, dogmatic and 
authoritative, squarely made in face of the excluding law 
of our Standards, that " any Christian minister has a right 
to membership " in this or any other Presbytery, no matter 
what his peculiar creed; that he is both "eligible" and 



[101] 

" entitled " to " every privilege " and " every position " im- 
plied in such membership, whether pastor, teacher of theol- 
ogy or church government, with free speech unchecked, 
and full power to " imbue the whole denomination" with 
his views, and that any one who dares to ask him not to 
advocate his antagonisms to our Standards usurps the 
" Throne of the Lord God Omnipotent." Head the double 
mockery of a liberalism that scorns to even respect the 
vow that binds to reverence and defense of our organic 
law, and sneers at our " beautiful consistency " and " de- 
lightful fellowship." Is this loyalty to the Presbyterian 
Church? Is there "some difference of opinion" here? 
How long would the church survive were such a course 
generally allowed ? Is the claim of a plenary indulgence 
to spread abroad unchallenged for " ten years," such palpa- 
ble contradiction of the Presbyterian Church, by sermon, 
paper, lecture, and debate, while receiving thousands from 
her funds, and subverting her order, an argument in defense 
of loyalty to the church and to ministerial vows? Is the 
license of unrebuked abuse against members of this Pres- 
bytery who have sought by milder measures to arrest this 
revolutionary liberty, so long indulged, or the plea that a 
personal defense of our faith and order against such doc- 
trine was a persecution of the defendant, or that conscience 
consecrates the right of a Presbyterian officer to revolt 
against his standard and yet remain undisciplined, is this a 
demonstration that our terms of ministerial fellowship are 
sinfully sectarian and should be blotted out? Moderator 
and brethren, your Committee are of one mind that our 
denomination, and our ministry, have been brought into 
contempt by the necessity that has demanded this judicial 
process. 

The doctrine of ministerial non-exclusion from the Pres- 
byterian Church, advocated by Mr. McCune, rests, as I have 
said, upon what he calls a "right" of inclusion, and that 
so-called right rests upon the simple fact that the applicant 
is a Christian minister. In other words, an assumed call 
to the ministry, ipso facto, entitles to membership in this 
Presbytery. Under the toleration, in our midst, of such a 



[ 102 ] 



sentiment, and with the old rule for the examination of 
ministers suppressed, who may not now knock at our door, 
or if knocking be refused admission ? Is this our boasted 
Reunion ? The doctrine of Mr. McCune is that, precisely 
as a private Christian has, ipso facto, a right to be in any 
Presbyterian Church, no matter what his opposition to 
Presbyterianism may be, and no matter how calculated, by 
talent or otherwise, to make trouble in our house, so any 
Christian minister has, ipso facto, a right to be in this Pres- 
bytery, no matter how opposed to our Standards. The 
plain English is, our Standards have no right to exist. It 
is no misrepresentation of the defendant. The doctrine 
has been publicly advocated for ten years, and is well 
known. The proofs are abundant and specific. Our polity 
is sinful — that's what it means. It is a "Wedge of Di- 
vision," an "Apple of Discord," an " Achan in the Camp." 

It will be enough that your Committee refer, without 
comment, to our law which Mr. McCune has so persistently 
opposed. The Presbyterian Church condemns the doc- 
trines of Mr. McCune, and affirms that, as a guardian of 
the Truth of God, she has a right to exclude from her min- 
isterial communion any minister who refuses to adopt the 
standards she has declared to be agreeable to the Word of 
God. In most express language, she declares her own in- 
ability to depart from the same, unless by" abandonment" 
of the Word of God itself. Her convictions are unaltera- 
ble. Her judgment is the latest and ripest conclusion of 
all the contests in the Church of Christ for eighteen mem- 
orable centuries. She affirms, in common with every other 
branch of the Church, from which in many things she dif- 
fers, that she is " entitled to declare the terms of admission " 
into her own communion, and the "qualifications" of her 
own ministers, and in such manner" that the faith once de- 
livered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, 
and so handed down to our posterity." Digest, pp. 44, 45. 
She does it all for the sake of the " Heavenly Doctrine," of 
more value than any organic union in earth or Heaven, and 
under a profound sense of her responsibility to Christ, the 
Head of the Church. She does exclude, and this is part of 



[103] 



her fidelity, historic glory, and blessing. She has inscribed 
her terms of admission in her standards, by requiring a 
sincere adoption, approval, and zealous maintenance of 
those standards, and of her peace, unity, and purity, bound 
up with such adoption, approval, and maintenance. Digest, 
pp. 48 (1), 49 (6), 55 (1, 2, 3). She is not a voluntary asso- 
ciation, nor a Christian Commission, nor an irresponsible 
Council. She is a Divine Foundation, under law to Christ, 
accountable for the light she diffuses, or the darkness she 
spreads upon the world. She imposes solemn vows on all 
her officers, ministers, elders, and deacons to adhere to what 
she believes God's word to be. Digest, pp. 399. 410, 411. 
She therefore excludes all ministers who can not accept her 
standards, p. 57 (14). Churches that repudiate her polity 
can not be received or retained, pp. 62 (2), 92 (II, 2). She 
binds herself to the Calvinistic system, p. 85 (4.) By her 
Eeunion covenant she makes her Confession of Faith a per- 
petual bond, and demands a positive approval of her polity, 
p. 91 (2). She requires that all her ministers shall teach 
according to her standards, p. 148. She strikes from her 
roll all those that join other denominations, pp. 620 (7), 
169 (8.) She insists upon the " enforcement " of her stand- 
ards, p. 191 (IV). She subjects to discipline all who traduce 
them. p. 54. She repudiates Mr. McCune's " human de- 
duction," drawn from the language of God. Rom. 15 : 7, 
p. 45. She wants no new Confession, p. 73. She will unite 
with none, organically, except upon the " Basis of the 
Standards." pp. 45-48. Is it possible for her to be more 
explicit in her condemnation of the doctrine of Mr. Mc- 
Cune, a doctrine which is a point-blank impeachment of the 
very terms of fellowship on which he was received into her 
ministerial communion ? I place the responsibility where 
it belongs. I submit that a bolder assault upon the Pres- 
byterian Church, or a more defiant propagation of errors, 
destructive of her existence as a denomination, a more in- 
telligently aimed stroke at her fundamental and vital doc- 
trine, by any of her ministers, never was known in all her 
history. No other cases in the Digest will compare with it. 
The disastrous effect of this propagation for " ten years " 



[104] 



in this region can not be calculated. I appeal to living 
proof. It has been almost as much as a minister's reputa- 
tion is worth to dare to stand up and resist the spirit under 
which this liberalism and lawlessness enjoyed their triumphal 
march. And with their eyes full upon the facts, and open- 
ing wider with astonishment at every step, your Committee 
are of one mind, that such a doctrine as the one in this 
single specification, and so clearly proved, and pregnant 
with such measureless consequences, is, of itself, amply 
strong to sustain the weight of the whole general charge*. 
I pass to the seventh specification. 

SPECIFICATION VII. 

Infant Church Membership Denied. 

This specification charges Mr. McCune with the public 
denial of the doctrine of infant church membership, and 
the affirmation of the counter-doctrine, that the visible 
Church on earth is simply a company of regenerate believ- 
ers. He holds that the doctrine of infant church-member- 
ship is to be repudiated as a High Church theory, the child 
of a sacramentarian dogma, which mediates the grace of 
Christ through an apostolic succession and the outward 
performance of sacramental rites and ceremonies. The 
"offspring" of believers, or of professing Christians, are 
thrown outside of God's covenant with the Church, and 
upon which the Church rests. "A Christian Church," says 
he, " is a Church of Christians, an assembly of believers, a 
company of regenerate souls." The inclusion of their 
" children," he tells us, " is not a part of the common 
faith." His principle of Organic Union, built upon his in- 
terpretation of Rom. 15 : 7, " excludes all baptized children 
from church-membership who can not give satisfactory 
scriptural evidence that they are Christians ;" i. e., it ex- 
cludes all infants. His language is as unmistakable here as 
elsewhere. He says : " I utterly repudiate the doctrine of in- 
fant church membership" " Unbelieving, unconverted chil- 
dren" are not members of the visible Church, even though 
their parents are in church covenant with God. It is " a 



[105] 



High Church theory." He would baptize an infant, but not 
recognize that Baptism as a covenant sign and seal of grace, 
nor the infant as having any Church right to Baptism. 
Baptism, as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, is only 
to be administered to regenerate souls, and this not upon a 
credible profession of their faith, but upon a credible " evi- 
dence" of faith; i. e., evidence regarded as "satisfactory" 
to human judgment that a person is truly regenerate. To 
crown all, and strengthen his assertions, he assumes to 
speak authoritatively, and declare to the world that " the 
Presbyterian Church has ceased to enforce Infant Baptism" 
These views of Mr. McCune betray, in an unmistakable 
manner, his true position, both as to doctrine and order. 
They rest upon a mutilation of the Abrahamic covenant, 
an identification of the "visible Church" with the "Body 
of Christ," an actual expulsion of the offspring of believers 
from their rights, the substitution in the case of adults of 
"credible evidence of faith" for a "credible profession of 
faith," and the theory that the terms of visible church-mem- 
bership are identical with the terms of salvation, or mem- 
bership in the "Body of Christ." 

Before passing to the law of our Standards, I desire to 
quote the singularly appropriate words of Dr. Bannerman, 
to whose admirable work I have already referred. Having 
established the clear distinction between the visible and in- 
visible Church, or the "visible Church" and the "Body of 
Christ," he says: "'The principles in regard to the visible 
and invisible Church, already indicated, have a very impor- 
tant bearing on the question of the lawfulness or unlawful- 
ness of Infant Baptism." " The doctrine of the visible 
Church and its external relationship to Christ lays the foun- 
dation for those views of church-membership which justify 
us in regarding the infants of professing Christians to share 
in the communion and privileges of the Church." " The 
Independent view, which insists on the possession of a sav- 
ing faith in Christ as the only footing on which church- 
membership can be conceded, and the only title to the en- 
joyment of church ordinances, tends very directly, if 
consistently carried out, to deprive the infants of professing 



[106] 

Christians of their right to be regarded as members of the 
Church, or to claim the benefits of its ordinances." Again, 
speaking of the Presbyterian terms of Communiou, " a 
credible profession of faith," and a " corresponding life and 
conduct," he says : " The Independents demand something 
more than this. Positive evidence of a credible kind that 
a man is a true believer, and savingly united to Christ, is 
alone held to be sufficient warrant to admit him to a Chris- 
tian Society, the work of grace effected in his soul being 
accounted the only ground and condition of church-member- 
ship. The difference between the principles of Presbyte- 
rians and Independents is broad and fundamental. With 
Independents, a saving belief in Christ is the only title of 
admission to the Christian Society. With Presbyterians, 
on the other hand, an intelligent profession of belief in the 
gospel is the title to admission to church-membership. The 
Independent system of church-membership is founded on a 
denial of the distinction between the visible and invisible 
Church of Christ." Church of Christ, Yol. I, pp. 36, 73. 
I think these quotations from so standard an authority, 
taken in connection with Mr. McCune's w T ords, leave no 
room for doubt that Mr. McCune is not a Presbyterian, but 
an Independent, under a Presbyterian name, and can not, 
and does not, either adopt the system of doctrine in our 
Confession, or the system of polity in our Discipline. 
Brownism is not more radical. 

Mr. McCune can not plead ignorance of our standards, 
however much he may plead " indifference," for he has 
studied them on this point, only to deny their doctrine, 
publicly, before the Evangelical Ministerial Association of 
Cincinnati, and spread the denial broadcast through the 
Commercial of May 9, 1876, even after the Presbytery had 
appointed its Investigating Committee, April 13, 1876, at 
Glendale. See Proof and Spec. XL, Proof 2. He quotes 
the standards only to assail them before others, and affirm 
that on this question they are no part of the common faith. 
Our law asserts that the " universal church consists of all 
those persons, in every nation, together with their children, 
who make profession of the holy religion of Christy and of 



[107] 



submission to his laws." Digest, p. 107. " A particular 
church" it defines to " consist of a number of professing 
Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated to- 
gether for divine worship and godly living, agreeably to 
the Holy Scriptures, and submitting to a certain form of 
government." p. 107. " Children born within the pale of the 
visible church, and dedicated to Grod in baptism, are under 
the inspection and government of the Church." p. 108 
(2, 6). " Not only those who do actually profess faith in, 
and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both 
believing parents are to be baptized" p. 108 (2, d). " All bap- 
tized persons are members of the church, are under its care, 
subject to its government and discipline, and when they 
have arrived at the years of discretion, they are bound to 
perform all the duties of church members" p. 497. The 
same doctrine is declared, p. 671, and the confirmation of it, 
p. 705. The same again in Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXV, 
Sec. II, and XXVIII, Sec. IV. Larger Cat. p. 62. Our 
Church forbids Mr. McCune to administer baptism " to any 
that are outside of the visible church" and therefore to infants, 
if he regards them as not members, for "all baptized persons 
are members of the Church" Larger Cat. Q. 166. Digest, 
p. 497. Shorter Cat. Q. 95. The visible church she de- 
clares not to be exclusively an assembly of believers and 
company of regenerate souls, but an assembly of baptized 
professors of the true religion with their unregenerate offspring. 
" The purest churches under heaven," she declares, "are 
subject to both mixture and error, and some have so degen- 
erated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues 
of Satan." Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXV, Sec. V. "Igno- 
rant, wicked, and ungodly men," she says, " do receive the 
outward elements in the sacrament," " are unfit to enjoy 
communion with Christ," " unworthy of the Lord's table," 
and are " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their 
own damnation." Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXIX, Sec. VIIL 
Such is our definition of the New Testament Church, cor- 
responding with our Saviour's illustrations in His parables 
of the tares and the wheat, the sheep and the goats, the 
good fish and the bad, the wise and the foolish virgins. 



[108] 



Both classes are included and sit under the means of grace, 
profess Christ, partake of the Lord's table, and meet to- 
gether at the judgment seat, to be forever separated — some 
on the right hand, welcomed to life eternal, the rest, on the 
left, going away into everlasting punishment. Mr. Mc- 
Cune would be wiser than the Master. He says the New 
Testament Church is an " assembly of believers, a company 
of regenerate souls." His organic union church desires to 
be an improvement, in this dispensation, on the Master's 
plan. Peter's sheet, let down from heaven, had in it "all 
manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things." Mr. 
McCune's would contain only regenerate doves. Peter's 
net at Pentecost inclosed Ananias and Sapphira; Mr. Mc- 
Cune's at Mount Lookout would gather only such as Ste- 
phen, Paul, and Cornelius. 

I dwell upon this specification, because of the fearful lat- 
itudinarianism of our times, with a host of lay preachers, 
who never refer to the covenant of God as the foundation 
of the visible Church, who regard the individual as its ulti- 
mate unit, and not the family, and who judge the title to 
membership in the church to be exclusively experiences 
and evidence, to fallible judgment, of regeueracy, and with 
whom, nevertheless, the doctrine of repentance has a small 
place in their preaching, while the mistake of emotional 
excitement for a work of grace has a wide berth — all this, 
with the increasing neglect of infant church-membership, 
baptism, and family training for God — threatens to sweep 
us away from our moorings. Organic union principles 
work in the same direction. 

It is not true that the " offspring of believers," are not 
members of the visible church, and to be treated as such. 
They are born within the pale of the church. They were 
never outside of it. The first breath they draw, and the 
first light they see are covenant breath and light. The 
arms that press them first to a mother's breast, and the 
tears that fall upon them, and the soft kiss that blesses 
their infant cheek, are arms and tears and kiss of covenant 
love. Their birthright in the church is the result of a 
promise of grace made to Abraham and his seed. Their 



[109] 



first home on earth is in the church of God. They belong 
to it as truly as did Isaac in Sarah's arms, or Jacob in Re- 
becca's. The church covenant is a household covenant. 
" 1 will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee" The promise 
is made to the children as well as to the parents. " It is to 
you and to your children" God never made a covenant that 
did not include the children, all of whom had a right to its 
sign and seal. The covenant with Adam involved his pos- 
terity. The race-covenant with Noah involved the human 
family, and its radiant seal still spans the heaven in every 
storm. The Sinai covenant took in the children. The 
church covenant with Abraham does the same. The unity 
of Old and New Dispensations is so vital to the doctrine of 
the Church, and wa3 so well understood, that special pre- 
cepts under the New, for requiring the signs and seals of 
the covenant to be given to all included in it, were not re- 
quired. The covenant with Abraham was confirmed in 
Isaac, in Jacob, and in Christ, at last, the Promised Seed, in 
whom all believers and their offspring were represented. 
" For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs 
according to the promise." It is under the general provi- 
sions of grace made to Abraham, who is " the father of all 
them that believe," that believing parents now present their 
children to God in Baptism upon the sacrifice and service 
of their faith, taking hold of God's covenant in behalf of 
their seed, and pleading with Him for the gracious fulfill- 
ment of its promises, all which are " Yea and Amen in 
Christ Jesus." It is because the children are included in 
that household covenant on which the Church of God rests, 
they are to be baptized. Mr. McCune says, the doctrine of 
infant church-membership is " no part of the common 
faith." Astounding declaration, if he knows what the 
" common faith " means! In the Roman Catholic Church, 
in the Greek Communion, in all the authoritative creeds of 
the Protestant Reformation, Lutheran and Reformed, ortho- 
dox Puritan and Presbyterian, as in the Apostolic Church, 
there is no other doctrine. " Foederati sunt baptizandi" is 
the consecrated motto, "the federate or covenanted are to 
be baptized," and only such. Has Mr. McCune yet to 



[110] 



learn, in express language, Paul assures us that baptism 
takes the place of circumcision, which signified regenera- 
tion, or the putting away of the sins of the flesh, the new 
uncarnal birth, effected by the Holy Ghost, whose work is 
symbolized by water? Col. ii: 11, 12; Horn, vi: 3, 4. Is 
he a Master in Israel, and has he yet to learn that, in God's 
constitution and economy, all church-membership rests 
upon the prior fact and condition of covenant relationship, 
that in the case of infants it is this stipulated inclusion of 
them in the church covenant, which is a household cove- 
nant, that guarantees the right of membership and right of 
Baptism, its sign and seal ; and that in the case of adults, 
outside of the covenant, their interest herein is to be at- 
tained, as Abraham's was, by faith ? Has ye yet to learn 
that it was because all this was so well understood in early 
times, Lydia and her house, and the jailor and his house, 
and the household of Stephanus were baptized, the believing 
parents upon their own faith, the children on the faith of 
the parents in a covenant confirmed to them and to their 
seed after them? Or were they the adult domestics and 
workhands called in from the field, or Roman slaves, who 
imagined it would be a good thing to be baptized too, he- 
cause their masters and mistresses commanded it ? Is Mr. 
McCune ignorant of the fact that in the New Testament 
there is more historic proof of household baptism, than 
there is of the celebration of the Lord's Supper ? Mod- 
erator, the reason Mr. McCune assails infant church-mem- 
bership is because he either assumes that the grace of God 
does not reach the infant's heart, in infant measure, and 
abide there as a living seed, or if it did, yet membership 
shall be denied because of infant incapacity to speak. Sir, 
the presumption is that grace does come to the children of 
believing parents, until that presumption is destroyed by 
evidence of scandal in their lives, and positive refusal to 
believe in Christ. Our Presbyterian law is built on this, 
when it requires all the baptized children of believing pa- 
rents, when they have reached the years of understanding, 
to come to the Lord's table. The reproach Mr. McCune 
suggests, of admitting to external membership " a multi- 



[Ill] 



tude of unbelieving, unconverted children," is a reproach 
against God's covenant, for they are born " unholy and 
unclean " yet federally 61 clean." " Else were your children 
unclean, but now they are holy." The efficacy of divine 
grace is not tied to sacramental administration in the Pres- 
byterian doctrine of Infant Baptism, and it is a false charge 
to say that our doctrine involves it. The sacramental 
union that exists between the sign and the thing signified, 
is not a realistic but symbolical ordained relation, whereby 
the sign both represents and seals the grace proposed, upon 
declared conditions, on the parent's part, without a limita- 
tion as to time or ceremony. The Lord's Supper does not 
cleanse from guilt, but only Christ. Baptism does not 
purify, or create anew, but only the Holy Spirit. The first 
may be administered only to believing adults because a 
Public Object is proposed therein to faith, Christ crucified, 
whom the believer must know. The second may be ad- 
ministered to unconscious infants, because it represents a 
Spiritual Agent's power behind the human consciousness, 
unseen and secret in his work. 

I would gladly dwell longer on this, but other subjects 
demand consideration. I affirm that for a Presbyterian 
minister to say, or any one to say, " I utterly repudiate the doc- 
trine of infant church-membership," is to deny God's covenant 
in Christ with all believers, and for believers and their seed ; 
to deny the very foundation of the Christian Church itself, 
and the ground of all church-membership, and prostitute the 
sacred ordinance of Baptism to a mere profane aesthetic art 
of fixing to a child a name. And yet " ten years " of this we 
have had, blown in every direction with a flourish of trum- 
pets in the interest of Organic Union ! Is it the doctrine 
of our standards? Is it loyalty to our system of doctrine? 
It is disloyalty to the sacred truth of Christ and to the 
Presbyterian Church, a public violation of most solemn 
ordination vows. Grant this license for "ten years" to all 
our ministers. Allow the liberalism of the times to rush in 
like a flood. Proscribe the men who dare to- lift their 
voices against the palliation of ruinous encroachments, and 
what then ? Shall we wonder why a covenant God who 



[112] 



has said " I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and 
floods on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit on thy 
seed, and my blessing on thine offspring'' has left our fleece 
dry, and seemed to us as though His promise failed forever- 
more ? Yows have lost their sanctity, and the phantom of 
organic union, caressed too long, like some Delilah, has 
grieved away the Spirit of all grace. We have risen up to 
shake ourselves as at other times, and " wist not that the 
Lord was departed from us !" I pass to the eighth specifi- 
cation. 

SPECIFICATION VIII. 

Admission of Unbaptised Persons. 

This specification brings to notice a doctrine of Mr. 
McCune, worthy to stand beside his mutilation of God's 
covenant with believers in behalf of their offspring. I show 
you the abstraction of membership from a helpless infant, 
the dowry God has given it, and charging it unjustly to 
the credit of a man whom Christ forbids to take it. I show 
you the tearing of the seal from the official deed conveying 
to the child its own inheritance, and giving it the seal with- 
out the parchment, and then the giving of the parchment 
to the adult without, the seal. Such is the administration 
and stewardship of the mysteries by organic union, and 
such is the account kept in its bank. Is it the part of a 
faithful and wise steward whom his Lord makes ruler over 
His household to give them their portion in due season? 
Mr. McCune refuses to children of believers their covenant 
title to church-membership, and yet baptizes them, affixing 
the sign and seal of their abstracted right. Mr. McCune 
gives to adults the official deed itself, and covenant inher- 
itance, conveyed to them without the sign and seal of its 
possession. The testamental seal he gives to one from whom 
he takes away the testament itself. The testament he 
passes to the other whom he lets reject the testament seal. 
Christ has made baptism an essential condition of external 
church-membership, though not an essential condition of 
membership in the " one Body " of Christ. Mr. McCune 
will not have it so. Jerusalem below must shine in the 



[113] 



prerogatives of Jerusalem above. The outer palace wall 
shall be confounded with the Bride herself who sits within 
the secret chamber. Israel, external, shall have the privi- 
leges of Israel, within. The Church invisible and visible 
shall be melted into one. Mr. McCune declares that the 
possession of saving faith, the door of entrance to the church 
invisible, shall be the door of entrance to the church visi- 
ble, and that Christian Baptism, on the profession of that 
faith, shall not. He will admit unbaptized possessors of that 
faith to church membership. Such is Mr. McCune's Organic 
Union — a bid for Quaker suffrage to his scheme, just as the 
denial of infant church membership is a bid to Baptists for 
their suffrage too; just as the denial of organic rule over a 
pluralitj 7 of congregations is a bid to Independents for their 
vote ; while the administration of the rite of baptism to 
infants is a sop to Presbyterians, the Prelatic posture of a 
minister without an Eldership a crumb to all Episcopalians, 
and creeds, condemned to dungeons and to chains, a sound 
of liberty to all Disciples ! Moderator, what kind of a thing 
is baptism upon Mr. McCune's theory ? Our book tells us 
that it is a covenant ordinance, a sign and seal of covenant 
blessing. With Mr. McCune it is neither. Having de- 
stroyed the covenant relation, baptism becomes nothing 
more than if one man should throw water into the face of 
another, and profanely pronounce upon him the name of 
the Trinity. "With us baptism is an " ordinance" with him 
it is a handful of water. And must we spend our time here, 
in judicial process and trouble for a year, before such non- 
sense and such disloyalty to our confession and our vows 
can be arrested, and our Church's peace secured ? 

Mr. McCune is bold to tell us what he would do, and 
what he has done in this respect. He would, he says, 
"receive any one" whom he judges to be regenerate, 
"although" such one has the views of the " Friends " con- 
cerning water baptism. Let the Presbytery observe, not 
only every member of the societies commonly called 
Quakers, who he judges " make a credible profession," and 
therefore, as he concludes, are regenerate, but "any one" 
though not among "Friends," yet having their "same 



[114] 



views," as to water baptism, be will receive. In otber 
words, all credible professors who, ipso facto, are decided to 
be credible possessors of saving faith, and yet " who at the 
same time deny the perpetual obligation of water baptism." he 
would "receive." He breaks down the door of entrance 
into the visible church, already made by Christ, and makes 
another for himself. And then he pretends, while pleading 
his broad principle, that it is only an " exceptional case." 
Christ's command is absolute. Our Standards bind it on 
the conscience of Mr. McCune. If one may enter unbap- 
tized, ten thousand may. No " exceptional case" is allow- 
ed by Christ. None by our Standards. When writing his 
book on Organic Union, and trying to establish the pro- 
position that none may be excommunicated, except upon 
the previous judgment that they are unregenerate, he 
lays down the doctrine that if a man refuses to obey the 
words of Christ, he is not a Christian. He asks, " Can a 
man refuse to obey the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and 
still be a Christian f" The judgment of charity would lead 
us to say, " Yes," for Mr. McCune's sake, when we re- 
member that he is under orders from Christ himself to 
baptize all nations. He asks again, " Can a man refuse to 
obey the inspired apostles and be a Christian ? " The same 
judgment of charity inclines us to answer " Yes," for 
the sake of Mr. McCune's "Friends," for the Apostles 
"commanded" believers to "be baptized in the name of the 
Lord." Acts 10 : 48. Organic Union, pp. 77, 78. Many a 
"proud" and many an "ignorant" man is a Christian, and 
can say and do many bad things. Mr. McCune, defending 
his new " divine law " as to excommunication, not only re- 
fuses to admit to membership, but excludes from member- 
ship, as unregenerate, the man who refuses to obey a 
known " command " of Christ and His Apostles. But 
when expounding his new "divine law" again, he assures 
us, "unhesitatingly" that he will judge to be regenerate, 
and receive to membership " every " man, " any " man, 
anywhere, who refuses to obey what Mr. McCune himself 
acknowledges to be a perpetual command of Christ and 
His Apostles, and be baptized. On his own confession, 



[115] 



therefore, his net takes in a whole swarm of un regenerate 
souls, believing unbelievers, w T ho not only repudiate 
Baptism, but both the sacraments together, and makes 
mere membership " all the fellowship they will accept." 
How then, on his own showing, is the Christian Church a 
"company of regenerate souls?" By his own definition 
every unbaptized man is unregenerate, because he disobeys 
a divine command in refusing to be baptized. Mr. Mc- 
Cune's " Friends" have no occasion to thank him for his 
argument. He makes them uncoverted. The "Quaker 
gun " may be heard resounding, " Friend, if what thee 
sayest is true, we don't need thee ; if what thee sayest is 
false, we don't want thee !" And the Baptist gun may yet 
explode a flood that will immerse a creed that can't hold 
water even for sprinkling, and leave not one of all the new 
communion unbaptized. It avails nothing for Mr. McCune 
to say, many interpret the command spiritually. "No hu- 
man deductions!" We want the command "expressed in 
God's own language." " The Bible is the only true creed for all 
true Christians, and all ministers, and all churches" "Every 
thing human in creeds I oppose." With what consistency, 
can Mr. McCune ejaculate such sentiments, and then pro- 
pose his own " deduction " in face of an express command 
of Christ and His apostles? — a deduction denying the per- 
petual and necessary obligation of water-baptism, as a door 
of entrance to the visible Church? — and then, like Sir 
Oracle, thunder in our ears, " We maintain that faith in 
Christ is not merely the great condition, but the only con- 
dition." " When we say that faith in Christ is the one 
essential condition of entrance, we mean that it is the only 
condition." And so the Organic Union " creed — no creed," 
woven like Joseph's coat of many colors, goes on, and the 
piebald anti-pro-denomination pleads an ** Apostolic pedi- 
gree ! Pray, moderator, what Apostle was it who fathered 
such a creed? I am sure it was not Peter who said, 
"Repent and be baptized." I am sure it was not Paul who 
tells us, " We are buried with Christ, by Baptism, into His 
Death !" "If I seek to please men, then I am not the servant 
of Christ" Christ's command is supreme though a thou- 



[116] 



sand Presbyteries or Synods are willing parties to its trans- 
gression. Broad and bold is the utterance of the Presby- 
terian Church that her whole power in Christ's Kingdom 
is simply "declarative and ministerial," and she dare no 
more dispense with Christ's command than Gabriel dare 
dispute an order from the Throne. By what authority does 
Mr. McCune leave it for the applicant to decide what the 
commands of Christ are, what His sacraments are, and how 
these are to be observed? Such an argument is a destruc- 
tion of the authority of the Church as a teacher and wit- 
ness of the Truth, and abdication of the functions of the 
ministry. If one applicant may decide according to his 
notion, another may decide a different way, and every com- 
mand of Christ be trampled under foot. The Standards, 
moderator, which Mr. McCune has vowed that he sincerely 
adopts, approves, and will maintain, declare and teach in 
the most express language the perpetual and necessary 
obligation of water-baptism. The ordinance is "to be con- 
tinued in the Church till the end of the world." Conf. of 
Faith, chap, xxviii, sec. 1; "continued in the Church of 
Christ until His second coming." Larger Cat. Q. 176. 
" To neglect or contemn this ordinance is a great sin" 
Conf. of Faith, chap, xxviii, sec. v. It is to despise Christ's 
command. " Can the Church answer to her great Head, if 
this neglect of duty be not mourned over and corrected?" 
Digest, p. 673. This ordinance is, for uncovenanted adults, 
the door of entrance into the visible Church, the gate " where- 
by the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible 
Church." Larger Cat. Q. 165. Here "Lo Ammi" and u Lo 
Buhamah " enter — Hosea i : 9, 10. It is part and parcel of a 
credible profession of faith in Christ. " When unbaptized per- 
sons apply for admission into the Church," after satisfactory 
examination, and, in ordinary cases, making a public profes- 
sion, "they shall, thereupon, be baptized." Digest, p. 677, 
(iv). " In the practice of our Church, and according to her 
Standards, baptism is manifestly regarded as a part of the 
general profession of faith and obedience to Christ." Digest, 
p. 678. By no vote of any session, nor of any committee- 
men, nor of any court on earth can an unbaptized person be 



[117] 



allowed membership in the Church. Mr. McCune is taught, 
by our Standards, "that the administration of baptism, ac- 
cording to the Word of God, must be involved in and at- 
tendant upon" any vote of reception, p. 129 (4). Ex- 
pressly is it stated, " The vote of a session does not entitle 
any unbaptized person to the privileges of the Church, for 
the reason that baptism, as our Confession of Faith declares, 
(Chap, xxviii, sec. 1), is declared to be a sacrament for the 
solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church" 
p. 130. "The public profession of one's faith may be omit- 
ted," but baptism may not be omitted, for the " exceptional 
case" as it is called, has no respect whatever to the omis- 
sion of baptism, but only to the omission of a public profes- 
sion, when, for good reasons, it can not be made. So our 
Standards : " The public profession of one's faith may, for 
sufficient reasons, as our Directory of Worship allows, be 
omitted ; but the exceptional case does not respect baptism, 
which precedes the admission of the party to the Lord's 
table." p. 130. The vote of the session or of any court 
admitting persons to church-membership, " must be condi- 
ditioned upon baptism, and can, in no case, be a substitute 
for the sacrament itself (baptism), p. 130. Twenty years 
ago, long before Mr. McCune came into the Presbyterian 
Church where he now is, the General Assembly settled 
that question. It settled also the question as to the admis- 
sion of the "Friends" by referring to the answers of the 
Larger Catechism, Q. 166, and Shorter Catechism, Q. 95, the 
undeniable doctrine of which is that they are not to be 
admitted into the Presbyterian Body while holding their 
peculiar views. Is Mr. McCune so blind, are we so blind, 
as not to see that to tolerate the omission of either sacra- 
ment, is to deny the perpetual and necessary obligation of 
both, and unchurch the Church? Is anything plainer in 
the world than that Mr. McCune's profession of obedience 
to Christ, as a minister of the New Testament, is a dis- 
obedience even greater than to the solemn vows he has 
taken to support the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ? 
or are Mr. McCune's views, the views of the Friends ? Has 
he yet to learn that although some scruples, by applicants, 



[118] 



in reference to infant baptism may be tolerated, in hope 
that sound instruction in the word, and loving reverence 
for Christ's command, and God's covenant, will remove 
them, yet no scruples as to their own baptism, upon profes- 
sion of their faith, are or can be tolerated for a single mo- 
ment? The Church is under law to Christ, and every ap- 
plicant must come under law to the Church. He must 
"submit" to be bound by the Church on earth, binding 
by the Word of Christ alone, as she hopes to have her ad- 
ministrative acts bound in heaven. There must be submis- 
sion to Christ's laws. Digest, pp. 675, 676 (7), 107, (ii, iv). 

Moderator and brethren, all this Mr. McCune knows. He 
is not ignorant of the Standards. It is by no fault of logic 
he has been betrayed into his chosen position. The logic 
is bad enough, but the " I propose" is worse. His Organic 
Union Eosinante rides rough-shod over the Standards, and 
delights to prance and caper under the spurs of her Don, 
upon those very spots where the truth especially comes into 
contact with his scheme. He dismounts and lays his Or- 
ganic Union ax not " at," but " to " the root of the Presby- 
terian tree ; the tree of the visible Church ; the tree of the 
covenant of God; the tree of Church Confessions; the tree 
of Baptism ; the tree of Church polity, and leaves nothing 
unchopped. His motto would seem to be, "After me the 
Deluge ;" or " After me the Millennium /" He strikes down the 
whole distinctive system of Presbyterian doctrine and order. 
If an unbaptized person may be a member, he may be an 
officer; if an officer, he may be a minister. If the title of 
elders may be thrown away, the title of ministers may be also. 
If he may dispense with ordination by the laying on of hands 
in the one case, he may do so in the other. There is noth- 
ing in the principles of his creed-no-creed to prevent an 
unordained, unbaptized ministry, called "leaders of the 
meeting," preaching to a church of unbaptized professing 
Christians who, having voted to dispense with the observ- 
ance of one sacrament, are ready at the next meeting to 
dispense with the observance of the other. Under Mr. 
McCune's polity, which makes or unmakes anything by a 
vote of a mongrel congregation, under no constitution, he 



[119] 



may do anything he pleases and plead immunity on the 
ground that he is " outside Presbyterian jurisdiction." The 
organization, as such, that would be left, acting on the 
principles of the new " divine law," would not be worth 
the while for Satan to tempt or Christ to save. If he may 
dispense with the Sacraments, he may dispense with the 
Word ; if he may dispense with the Word, he may dispense 
with the Master. Moderator, such Organic Union, under 
the guise of Christianity, is verily a " great sin " against 
Christ, His Cross, and His Crown! "Ten years?" Tell 
it not in Gath ! I pass to the ninth specification. 

SPECIFICATION IX. 

Saving Faith — What is it ? 

This specification, and the proofs under it, show what 
Mr. McCune thinks of Saving Faith, the one condition of 
external Church-membership. It also measures the liber- 
ality of judgment allowable in the ministerial determina- 
tion of what constitutes credible evidence of regeneracy in 
a suppliant for Church ordinances and privileges. As a 
result of the minimum quid creed, we have the minimum 
quid faith, and the maximum quid liberality upon qualifica- 
tions for Church-membership. Briefly, while it is vastly 
important that all Christians should believe in the infalli- 
bility of the Word of G-od, upon the unfailing certainty of 
whose promises in and testimony concerning Christ all sal- 
vation hangs, and the whole assurance, comfort, peace, light, 
hope, and life of a believing soul, yet such a faith as this is 
not essential to being a Christian, and if so then clearly not 
essential to salvation. The conviction or inner-conscious be- 
lief that the Bible can not fail, is not even essential to true 
and saving faith itself. To say that a part may be infallible, 
and a part not, is no help here. It is enough that " the 
Bible is my creed," without believing it infallible. "We 
believe," says Mr. McCune, " that a man may be a Chris- 
tian and not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, although 
6 almost' all Christians do believe the Bible to be infallible." 
So, again, while it is vastly important that the testimony as 



[120] 



to Christ's proper humanity should itself be true, and all 
Christians believe it, yet such a faith is not essential 
to being a Christian, and, by consequence, not essential to 
salvation. The attempt to find a shelter for these views by 
a reference to Luther, as the defendant has already inti- 
mated, and to plead the name of Dr. Hodge, in addition, is 
vain. The shelter of ubiquitarianism, and the criticism of 
Luther on some parts of the Canon, will not help the de- 
fendant to maintain statements so broad and flat-footed as 
these. It is an after-thougbt. Did Luther deny the infal- 
libility of the Bible ? Did he deny the proper humanity of 
Christ? The conviction or inner-conscious belief that 
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, the Son of David, the 
Son of Abraham, the Son of Adam, the Son of God, was, 
and is, my true Elder Brother, whose soul and body were a 
sacrifice to God for human guilt, is not essential to true and 
saving faith itself, according to Mr. McCune. It is enough 
that " Jesus is my Saviour," as " the Bible is my creed," 
without believing in His proper humanity. " We believe," 
says Mr. McCune, u that a man may be a Christian and 
not believe in the proper humanity of Christ." Such is the es- 
sential nature of Organic Union Saving Faith. It is the 
acceptance of a testimony concerning whose certainty the 
soul remains in doubt. It is the repose of the soul upon 
the word of One who claims to be the sinner's substitute, 
but whose proper humanity the Christian calls in question. 
It opens the door for the old exploded Christological here- 
sies. The Bible may be infallible, but the Christian need 
not be sure that it is so. Christ may be properly human, 
but the Christian need not be sure that He is so. The anguish 
of the loving heart, " They have taken away my Lord and 
I know not where they have laid Him," can never pierce 
a soul to whose Saving Faith no certainty that He is prop- 
erly man, nor that His word of grace can ever fail, are 
needed. The miraculous office of this Organic Union Sav- 
ing Faith is (1) that, ipso facto, it excludes all fatal heresy, 
and (2) it makes regenerate souls all orthodox ; the one a 
negative pole of virtue, the other a positive. " A Saving 



[121] 



Faith in Christ," says Mr. McCune, " excludes all fatal 
heresies." Again, " Regenerate souls are all orthodox." 

I beg of my brethren in the ministry to note to what 
direful lengths one false principle lodged in the human 
mind will lead, one false interpretation of God's word ! To 
observe how a man devoted to it is borne, he knows not 
whither, and stands " amazed," abashed, confounded, when 
confronted with his own dauguerreotype. To Mr McCune's 
new non-excluding " divine law of organization," which 
puts Union before Truth, and not Truth before Union; In- 
difference before Conscience, and not Conscience before Indif- 
ference, is all this dark perversion to be traced. Organic 
Union calls for sacrifice, the sacrifice of Truth, her abdica- 
tion of her throne. The sacrifice is made, and Toleration 
is the cry. The necessary articles of the Christian Faith 
are reduced to the smallest possible compass, in order to in- 
clude the utmost possible number. The interpretation of 
the Scripture is put in abeyance only to make room for the 
encroachments of Infidelity. The doctrinal results of 
eighteen centuries, embodied in our peerless Standards, the 
martyr-testimony, crown, and heir-loom of our noble Church, 
with all its barriers, guards, and chosen words, bright like 
glittering armory, and all their histories, recounting where 
and how the Truth was saved on many a hard-fought bat- 
tle-field, all are thrown away. And what is given us here 
instead ? The doctrines of Rome, against which the Re- 
formers fought, and over which they triumphed. Uncer- 
tainty as to God's word ! Uncertainty of the believer's salva- 
tion ! Room for Tradition to come in here ! Room for 
salvation by works here ! Room for the calm scornful 
smile of the Archbishop of Cincinnati ! Room for the 
mantling cheek of shame in the Presbyterian Church ! The 
Standards a shuttlecock, within five years after Reunion, 
struck by the battledore of Romanism to the one side, 
struck back by the battledore of Independency to the other ; 
both in the hands of Mr. MCune. Or is it the spirit of Modern 
Liberalism, the Sceptical free-thinking " Spirit of the Age," 
breathing through Organic Union, the Serpent, in the garb 
of light, lurking in our Eden, and whispering doubt as to 



[122] 



God's truth, saying: " Yea, hath God said?" and doubt as 
to Christ's proper humanity, saying : " Has He come in the 
flesh r 

"Ithuriel and Zephon ! with winged speed, 

Search through this garden ; leave unsearched no nook; 

There tells of some infernal Spirit seen, 

Hitherward bent (who could have thought ?), escaped 

The bars of hell, on errand bad, no doubt; 

Such, when ye find, seize fast, and hither bring." 

Moderator, the Presbyterian Standards, Mr. McCune has 
vowed to maintain, teach that no man can be a "Christian,'' 
and "not believe in the infallibility of the Bible ; " that no man 
can be a " Christian," and not believe in the proper humanity 
of Christ, and that saving faith, carries in its bosom, by ne- 
cessity, the assurance that the Word of God is infallible, 
and that Christ is properly man. Our Confession of Faith, 
chap. XIV, sees. 1, 2, declares that Saving Faith is a 
" grace," " the work of the Spirit of Christ in the heart," 
and that " by this faith a Christiau believeth to be true, 
w r hatever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God 
Himself speaking therein" "He that believeth not God 
hath made Him a liar." It teaches, chap. I, sec. 5, that this 
faith is "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible 
truth and Divine authority thereof," and that this persua- 
sion and assurance are u from the inward work of the Holy 
Spirit, bearing witness with and by the Word in our hearts." 
This is what the Holy Ghost does when He makes a 
" Christian." He enlightens the soul to know that the 
Bible is infallibly true. The believer learns that the "Su- 
preme Judge " in all doubt, is " the Holy Spirit speaking in 
the Scripture." It is not possible for a man to be a 
"Christian," such an one as the Holy Ghost makes, and not 
believe in the infallibility of the Bible. It is not possible 
for him to have Saving Faith and doubt the Word of God. 
The ground for his confidence is gone. To doubt its infalli- 
bility is to doubt its Inspiration, for it is the Inspiration 
that makes it Infallible. Faith is reduced to mere opinion 
or conjecture, which is not saving. The only possible argu- 
ment by which to avoid the force of these conclusions, is 
to affirm that the " Bible " is not the "Word of God," and 



[123] 



that the "Word of God " is not the "Bible." Moderator, 
our Standards have settled this matter for all Presbyterian 
ministers, and no one in our Church has a right to teach 
any such doctrine. Our standards expressly declare that 
the Bible is all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, 
and enumerates them in order. Our Confession says, "Under 
the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, 
are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Test- 
aments, which are these," and every Presbyterian minister 
solemnly affirms that he receives them as the "Word of 
God," and the " only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
The " Bible " is the " Word of God;' and the " Word of God" 
is " the Bible," all whose books our Standards affirm are 
" given by inspiration of God." And so as to our Lord's 
proper humanity. Our Shorter Catechism tells us that 
Saving Faith " is a Saving Grace whereby we receive and 
rest upon Christ alone for salvation, .as He is offered to us in 
the gospel." Q. 86. And how He is offered to us in the 
gospel we are told in these words, "Christ, the Son of God, 
became man, by taking to Himself a true body and a reason- 
able sold." Q. 22. Also Large Cat. Q's. 36, 37, 39, where 
His humaauity is declared to be a necessity for our salvation. 
The object of Saving Faith is not a phantom, not a picture 
in the mind, not an ideal Jesus, not a work of imagination, 
but the Son of God in flesh-, i. e., human nature, "proper 
humanity" a " man" who is also God. Deity, apart from 
humanity, is no object of Saving Faith. Humanity, apart 
from Deity, is none. Saving Faith must believe in both, 
or it can not be saving, because it does not receive Christ 
"as He is offered to us in the gospel" It is the mark of an- 
cient as of modern Anti-Christianity, to deny that "Christ 
has come in the flesh." It is next door to it to "not believe" 
that He has so come, and not far from it to question His 
proper humanity. It is not possible for the Holy Spirit to 
work in a sinner's soul Saving Faith in Christ, and allow 
him " not to believe in the proper humanity of Christ." 
Without that humanity there is no sacrifice, no atonement, 
no death, no resurrection, no ascension. To not believe in 
the infallibility of the Bible, is to not believe in its inspi- 



[124] 



ration. To not believe in the proper humanity of Christ 
is to not believe in his true Incarnation. When Inspira- 
tion and Incarnation are thrown into doubt, where is the 
saving faith ? If a Christian need not believe that Christ 
was properly man, he need not believe that He died on the 
cross or rose from the dead. The organic-union-liberal- 
possible Christian is simply an infidel. And yet Mr. Mc- 
Cune would receive him, and informs us that such saving 
faith as leaves the Word of God, and the work of 
Christ in doubt, ipso facto, " excludes all fatal heresies " ( ! ), 
and that the possession of such faith is " credible evidence " 
of regeneration (!!), and that "regenerate souls are all 
orthodox^ ! ! ! ) What fatal heresy does it not include ? It 
is fatal heresy itself. Who are the " regenerate ? " They 
are unbelievers. Who are the " orthodox ? " The doubt- 
ers of God's Word and Christ's proper humanity. All this 
Mr. McCune will tolerate in others, even though he may 
try to explain it away for himself. Is this the justifying 
faith of the gospel, defined from its source, the Spirit; from 
its seat, the heart; from its food, the Word ; from its object, 
Christ ; and from its end, salvation ? Sir, it is just like the 
loyalty, in face of the doctrine of our Standards which 
teaches that the number of the elect is " so certain and 
definite that it can not be increased or diminished," the loy- 
alty that teaches in Mr. McCune's language, there are " mul- 
titudes in the pit of despair who might have been blessedly 
and eternally saved " if only organic union had existed 
from the beginning. Christian Standard, July 31, 1875, p. 
245. Is this the orthodoxy of our Standards ? Is it loy- 
alty to the Presbyterian Church ? " Ten years." Publish 
it not in Askelon! I pass to the tenth specification. 



SPECIFICATION X. 

Time of Advocating His Views. 

This specification, Avith its appended proofs, establishes 
the fact beyond question of the sincerity of Mr. McCune in 
the advocacy of his peculiar views. They are his abiding 
convictions, formed after mature deliberation, and during 



[125] 



protracted and various discussion, and nourished with as- 
siduous care. They are no transient misjudgments, slips 
of the pen, unreiterated statements, words hastily spoken, 
or positions thoughtlessly taken. The Prosecution could 
have overburdened the Court with a still more redundant 
testimony. They are the result of a consistent scheme, 
built on the boundless license of the new " divine law of 
organization," a scheme revolutionary of all existing de- 
nominations but its own. " Ten years " have testified to 
its propagation, within the bounds of this Presbytery, in 
every way possible for a propagation to be made. The time, 
therefore, as the manner of this advocacy, is a demonstra- 
tion of Mr. McCune's sincerity herein. " Ten years " of 
unchallenged liberty, he numbers, as if establishing his 
right to continue the advocacy as long as he chooses. He 
pleads five of these ten. the period since the official order 
of the Synod of Cincinnati to circulate his views of organic 
union, as a special period of encouragement, enough to jus- 
tify a double protest against the Presbytery's right to bring 
both them and himself under formal adjudication. "I 
am," says he, " advocating no sentiments now (Feb. 15, 
1876), which I have not openly proclaimed for ten years 
back" It is the truth. He affirms that the liberty he has 
enjoyed in the Presbytery for all these years remained offi- 
cially " unquestioned until Dr. Skinner made'" what he 
calls "his attack upon him;" i. e. until the time of the 
Council that installed him at Mt. Lookout, Dec. 1875. His 
convictions are sincere, if time is an evidence of sincerity. 
He proposes still to advocate them. " I have publicly ad- 
vocated," says he to the Committee, " and propose to advo- 
cate the following principles on the subject of Christian 
Union, etc," principles declaring all denominational enact- 
ments, and distinctive creed statements, as "wedges of divis- 
ion," " apples of discord," "Achan in the camp," and their 
enforcement as " essentially sinful." Thus, for " many 
years," last past, as propagandist and Apostle of Organic 
Union on such a Basis, he has diffused his teachings 
throughout the Christian community, as editor in his paper, 
as minister in his pulpit, as debater in the press, as lecturer 



[126] 



in the country, in all possible ways, invoking the cry of 
" Sectarianism," " Bigotry," " Popery," against those who 
have dared to oppose him. Under the claim of "Con- 
science," " Toleration," and " Liberty," he has espoused 
and crusaded a doctrinal communism, and an ecclesiastical 
phalanstery, of which Brown, Fourier, St. Simon, and 
Eobert Dale Owen might be proud. 

It is a fair question, Moderator and brethren, how much 
time a teacher of error may be allowed in the Presbyterian 
Church for the advocacy of views destructive of her Con- 
stitution and her very existence? If Mr. McCune may be 
allowed " ten years," the rest of us may be allowed the 
same. Paul, at Antioch, yielded, " no, not for an hour, that 
the truth of the gospel might remain." Evidently he did not 
favor any Organic Union scheme the Judaizers proposed, 
or Peter compromisingly winked at for the time. A " Plan 
of Union," enacted in 1801, endured a generation, and was 
brought to its close by legislative enactment in 1838, in 
order to save the Standards. For several years past, more 
than a hundred Presbyterian ministers allow their names 
to be appended, in a religious paper, published at Brooklyn, 
and devoted to Organic Church Union, to a "brief creed," 
which Unitarians, or Semi-Pelagians, or Arminians, or 
Prelatists, or Independents, could readily subscribe. " Ten 
years" may make a revelation. " Vereor quorsum evadat !" 
Thirty-eight years ago was the following utterance made: 
" We have in our Church many men who are avowed anti- 
sectarians, who think the barriers which separate the differ- 
ent denominations of Christians should be broken down. 
It is a possible case that men of these opinions should have, 
on some occasion, an accidental majority in the General 
Assembly. Suppose they should avail themselves of the 
opportunity to enact a plan of Union, by which, not the 
favored Congregationalist only, but the Episcopalian, the 
Baptist, and even the Papist, should be allowed to sit and 
vote in all our Presbyteries. This would be hailed with de- 
light by many as the commencement of a new era, as the 
adoption of a principle which could stand the test of the 
millenium." Princeton Essays (Second Series), p. 281. It 



[127] 



is possible that in " ten years " from now something of this 
nature might be attempted. It was not possible for thirty 
years past, in either branch of our Church. But as things 
now go with so many, and "Union" is put before "Truth," 
and things allowed in the Reunion that never would have 
been tolerated in either branch during a generation past, it 
is fair to ask, how long, now, may a man be permitted to 
propagate views and principles, which not only strike at our 
standards of doctrine and order, but also at the very truth of 
God itself, and at the very existence of the Presbyterian 
Church ? The ancient watchword of historic Presby terianism 
was "Truth before Union." The Reformers valued it more 
than all else. They abandoned the boasted Organic Union of 
Eome, in order to save the Organic Truth of God. " The 
Paulickian line of witnesses took " Heavenly Truth " for 
their motto. The Waldensian line held aloft in the Alps 
and in the valleys of Piedmont their Yaldic "Lucerna," a 
lighted candlestick amid surrounding darkness, inscribed 
with the words "Lux lucet in Tenebris " — " the light shineth 
in the darkness," although the fields were as green, and the 
sky as blue, and the sun as bright as they are now. They 
put "Truth before Union" Calvin's motto was Paul's, 
"Let God be true and every yuan a liar." "We can do 
nothing against the Truth," not even Organic Union. But 
now the times are changed, and we with them. "Ten 
years" to ply the misinterpretation of Rom. 15: 7. "Ten 
years" to teach that our Lord's intercessory prayer neces- 
sitates the breaking up of all the evangelical denominations 
as such, and the non-enforcement of the denominational 
laws of the Presbyterian Church. " Ten years " for a Pres- 
byterian minister to exclaim against Church creeds and 
confessions, and denounce his own, among the rest, as " sec- 
tarian." "Ten years" to harp on the word "Evangelical," 
as though it were a word, not of shades and degrees, but of 
absoluteness in its application. . Ten years" to mutilate 
and deny God's covenant in Christ, with believers, in be- 
half of their children, and take away the covenant founda- 
tion of the Church itself. "Ten years" to , advocate doc- 
trines and views antagonistic to the very essence of our 



[ 128 ] 



Eldership polity. " Ten years " to preach that the visible 
Church is the " Body of Christ," and break down the apos- 
tolic distinction Rome destroyed, and the Reformers re- 
claimed, as they searched for the Truth. "Ten years" to 
deny infant church-membership, advocate the admission of 
unbaptized professors to full communion, and permission to 
dispense with the sacraments of the Church. "Ten years" 
to proclaim the right of a Presbyterian minister to be under 
two different creeds and antagonizing allegiances at the 
same time, and church members under two conflicting ju- 
risdictions. "Ten years" to herald non-excluding terms of 
ministerial fellowship. "Ten years" to maintain that ordi- 
nation vows do not bind, or bind only to what each minis- 
ter chooses to teach. " Ten years " to assert that the Presby- 
terian law is an oppression of the conscience, and that the 
time has come to wake up and begin a reorganization of 
the whole New Testament Church ! " Ten years " of set 
purpose and assiduous labor to "imbrue the whole denom- 
ination " with these organic union principles ; and now the 
word that " eight or ten years ago " it might have done to 
raise the point whether such liberty and such advocacy 
might be questioned, " but now it is too late ! " There is some 
force in this. How long may a Presbyterian minister go on 
in this way, and how long " propose" still to go on ? 

Moderator and Brethren, I present it as a case of unpar- 
alleled license and persistence, on the part of any minister, 
in the history of the Presbyterian, or any other denomina- 
tion, whose respect for its own honor, and the honor of re- 
ligion and truth has not yet departed, and on whose eccle- 
siastical walls " Ichabod " has not yet been written. And 
I present the additional aggravation of an utter disregard 
of the conscientious feelings of his brethren in the minis- 
try, and of the respect due to this Court, and of the peace 
of the Church, as also a disregard of the proprieties and 
duties incumbent upon him in the circumstances, — a disre- 
gard no less manifest than that displayed toward the Stand- 
ards and the Presbyterian Church itself, — persisting with 
more than indifference to the action of the Presbytery in 
the public propagation of his views, without restraint, even 



[129] 



after his course had been brought to official notice, and his 
case put under official examination. 

It was on April 13, 1876, the Presbytery's resolution of 
inquiry was passed. Respect for that action should have 
prompted Mr. McCune to abstain from the further propa- 
gation of his views until an official judgment had been 
reached by his brethren. Instead of this, we find him, 
May 8, 1876, only a little over three weeks after the Pres- 
bytery's action, publicly advocating again his views on De- 
nominations, the Church of God, Infant Baptism, Terms of 
Communion, Admission of the Unbaptized, his whole 
scheme, precisely as before, in presence of the General 
Ministerial Association of Cincinnati. This was contempt, 
if not contumacy. Again, his views are spread abroad in 
the public press, May 9, 1876. Not less confident does he 
appear June 26, 1876, in presence of the Presbytery's In- 
vestigating Committee, to whom he offers a paper, given 
back, however, to be substituted by one less convicting, but 
still replaced by another, informing the committee that he 
" proposes " to keep on just as before, and declaring that 
" it is susceptible of proof that the advocacy of this Chris- 
tian union doctrine has been with the knowledge and by 
the permission of the Presbytery of Cincinnati and by the 
consent aud with the co-operation of the Synod of Cincin- 
nati, and that this advocacy is not in violation of any Pres- 
byterian law whatever." Nor less marked was the public 
disrespect to the Presbytery and his brethren, by again the 
third time reiterating his views to the public in a formal 
protest against the action of the Presbytery, published Oc- 
tober 17, 1876, in the Commercial, replete with such gross 
personalities, as would bar it from a place on the official 
records, yet published to the world before presentation of it 
to this body. I present it, Moderator, as unexampled in 
the history of our Church. May it please the Court, that 
" ten years" of such advocacy be the extreme limit of the 
indulgence ! 

The Presbyterian Church, stirred by Common Fame, and 
grieved at such persistence, comes into Court with a right- 
eous plaint in her mouth, making solemn averment that 



130] 



she receives but damage and demoralization, by such lib- 
erty, assumed either by ministers or elders. She pleads that 
she can not build while buffeted by her own sons, or main- 
tain either her prestige or honor, while her name is denied, 
her distinctive enactments and organic law traduced, and 
her authority treated with contempt; and that the doc- 
trines, principles, and views of Mr. McCune, like the man- 
ner of their advocacy, are not only at war with her stand- 
ards, but, if generally accepted, would be subversive of her 
constitution and of her very existence as a distinctive de- 
nomination. 

The prosecution does not dwell upon the law, but simply 
refers to it. E~ot one hour is allowed for such a license, not 
one moment, by our statute. It is disloyalty. Our Church 
requires her ministry "to teach and preach according to 
the form of sound words in the Confession and Catechisms, 
and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto" Digest, p. 
48 (II). To "traduce" her Standards is a call for " that 
salutary discipline which hath for its object the mainte- 
nance of the peace and purity of the Church under the 
government of her Great Master." p. 43 (3). They who 
can not accept her denominational laws are invited to 
" peaceably withdraw." p. 48 (I). Strong is the injunc- 
tion of our Supreme Court, signed by the Moderator, the 
mentor of his day : " Let no doctrine inconsistent with the 
Sacred Scriptures, as explained and summarily taught in the 
doctrinal Standards of our Church, be promulgated or 
favored in any of our Churches" "He who teaches 
any doctrine, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the 
evident meaning of our excellent formularies, should 
be regarded as an err ovist by Presbyterians, whom they 
ought not to encourage, but discountenance, reject, and 
avoid." p. 304 (8). This is our law. It remains to be 
seen whether our " Reunion" will respect it. I pass to the 
eleventh specification. 



[131] 



SPECIFICATION XI. 

Common Fame. 

This specification, with its proofs, establishes the fact of 
the Common Fame of Mr. McCune's disloyalty to the 
Presbyterian Church, loudly proclaiming that, in contra- 
vention of his vows, he was the public advocate of prin- 
ciples and views at war with our standards, and subversive, 
if generally accepted, of our Doctrines, Constitution, and 
very existence ; a fame accompanied not only with strong 
presumption of its truth, hut living demonstration, as al- 
ready shown, during a period of " ten years ;" an offense 
striking at vital truths of Divine Revelation, and the very 
foundations of the Presbyterian Church, and calling for 
action by this Court. The Court will note that of the 
many articles in the thirteen different secular and religious 
papers enumerated in Proof 1, under this Specification, 
some forty or more of which are editorial, most of them 
condemning in the strongest possible manner Mr. McCune's 
views, and some of them his course, not one was pub- 
lished subsequent to April 13, 1876, the date of the Presby- 
tery's resolution at Glendale, when the views and course of 
Mr. McCune were, for the first time, formally brought to 
the notice of the Presbytery, and the following Preamble 
and Resolution were passed : " Whereas, for some time past, 
there have been current rumors in regard to the views and 
course of Rev. ~W. C. McCune, a member of this Presby- 
tery, involving the question of his loyalty to the order of 
the Presbyterian Church, and whereas there seems to be 
some difference of opinion in regard to the subject, 

" Therefore, resolved, that a Committee of three minis- 
ters and two elders he appointed to have a full confer- 
ence with Mr. McCune, and to inquire into all the facts 
bearing on the case, and report to Presbytery at the next 
stated meeting." The Common Fame as to the charge 
was not only co-extensive with the jurisdiction of both the 
Presbytery and the Synod, not merely co-extensive with 
the bounds of neighboring Synods, but with those of the 



132 ] 

Presbyterian Church itself, North and South, East and 
West, long before the Presbytery met April 13, 1876. The 
Court will also notice that all this superabundant evidence 
of Common Fame is only adduced by the prosecution as 
additional or supplementary to what is already manifest from 
the dates in the proofs already given. It is added to show 
the ample ground for action by the Presbytery. The Presby- 
terian Church, therefore, conducts her process properly on 
the ground of Common Fame, and this Court is abundantly 
justified in ordering up the prosecution for this reason. It 
will also be noted, by a comparison of dates, that the reso- 
lution of the Glendale Presbytery, April 13, 1876, was not 
taken until Jive months after the claimed and reputed organ- 
ization of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church, Novem- 
ber, 1875. That part of the Investigating Committee's Re- 
port, which episcopally condemns the views of Mr. McCune, 
is quoted in Proof 3 of the specification, in order to show 
that the presumption of the truth of Common Fame was 
a true presumption, even apart from the documentary evi- 
dence spread broadcast in the editorial columns and public 
discussions antecedent to April 13, 1876. On that portion 
of the evidence the prosecution make no comment. Our 
Church recognizes that Common Fame may be common 
falsehood, and is ready to mete to it the condemnation it 
deserves. But that any Presbyterian minister should pur- 
sue such a course as, by his own acts, to intensify the 
truth of Common Fame, charging him with disloyalty to 
the Faith and Order of his Church, such that the scandal 
can not be removed without the action of the Court, and 
for the honor of religion, our Book accounts a " sin." Di- 
gest, pp. 521 (Y.YI), 499 (IY.V). 



[ 133 ] 



Offense : Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
CHAEGE II. 

The character of this Charge is that the Rev. W. C. Mc- 
Cune, for the avowed purpose of carrying into practical 
effect the doctrines, views, and principles specified under 
Charge I, bent his energies to the work of advising, pro- 
moting, and encouraging the New Anti-Denominational 
Association, called distinctively the " Union Christian 
Churches of America" and also the Anti-Denominational 
Organization at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, both these or- 
ganizations being founded on the doctrines, principles, and 
views aforesaid. The gravamen of this charge is the same 
as that of Charge I, viz., that such course of conduct, if 
generally allowed, would totally subvert our Constitution 
and destroy the Presbyterian Denomination. 

SPECIFICATION I. 

General Association. 

The first Specification calls attention to the means Mr. 
McCune has employed in this work. The Prosecution note 
that, immediately after the New York Convention, October 
1873, met to u make immediate and prayerful preparation 
for the reorganization " of the whole " Christian Church," 
the " Christian Unity " appeared in Cincinnati, under the 
sole editorship of Mr. McCune, its first number bearing 
date Cincinnati, November 8, 1873. That number is here- 
with presented. Then began the work in earnest. "Life 
is short, and time is fleeting." The editor tells us " when 
he began the 8th of November to issue this paper, he, at 
the same time, began to deliver lectures on the subject of ' 
Christian Unity." His "most efficient instrumentalities" 
were " public oral addresses and the press." The tone of 
the editorials and addresses, together, reveal the fact that 
he was hopeful, and not in the least appalled by the mag- 
nitude of the undertaking. He saw " a great host of living 
Christian hearts, now separated by mere human sectarian 



[134] 



walls," who, " but for sectarian managers and place-men, 
would gladly unite to-morrow in the new movement ! " 
With the zeal of an Apostle he addresses himself to the 
work. John in the desert crying, "Prepare ye the way of 
the Lord," was not more in earnest. Proof 2, under the 
Specification, shows us Mr. McCune in the field ; how by 
lecturing at large, traversing the bounds of the Synod, and 
outside of it, he discoursed on Organic Union at Butler, 
Boston, and Newport in Kentucky; in Goshen, South 
Salem, and at Parrott's School House, in Ohio; how Lin- 
den and Springfield, UYbana and Buck Creek, New Rich- 
mond and Hillsboro, woke their echoes to his voice; how 
Madison and Middleton hearkened attentive on Sabbath 
morning to the new " divine law of organization," and the 
afternoon bore the accents to Astoria, while the shades of 
evening that fell around Jacksonburg were illumined with the 
shimmering light of the advancing millennium ! " Eighteen " 
different places within one month, between November 8 
and December 13, all led listening to the music of Organic 
TJnion,as when Orpheus charmed the woods with his lyre — 
a zeal Apostolic, worthy of Loyola and St. Xavier ! And 
so the work went on. Next comes the wide sweeping 
" Address to all the Christian Ministers and Churches in North 
America, with a Basis of Union" issued from Cincinnati, 
October 1874, the topmost signature to which is that of Mr. 
McCune, calling on all sympathizing ministers and mem- 
bers, everywhere, to range themselves under the banner of 
the new Anti-Denominational Association, to be known as 
the " Union Christian Churches of America" adopting the 
Basis and enrolling their names ; how, in order to avoid the 
charge of forming a " new sect," they were to hold on and 
let go at the same time, if they " do not deem it expedient to 
sever existing denominational relations;" to remain as min- 
isters and members in the old " extra-scriptural " organi- 
zation and yet enter the new one "on a New Testament 
Basis," after the true Apostolic style ; that ministers will 
be asked no questions except whether they agree to a few 
unexplained texts, " expressed in God's own language as 
commonly received," and which they are told constitute the 



[135] 



" common faith," " once for all delivered to the saints ;" to 
be sure and send " delegates" to attend the impending Gen- 
eral Convention at Suffolk, Virginia, on the first Wednes- 
day of May, 1875, and, in particular, to advocate the prin- 
ciples of Organic Union as set forth in the Basis. (See 
Specification V, Proofs 2, 3, 6). What fortunes attended 
the call we know not. The Convention at Suffolk was held. 

Temporarily suspended, the " Christian Unity " is again 
resumed, not upon the principle of non-enforcement, but 
upon the principle of re-inforcement, the paper appearing 
August 1, 1875, under the joint triple editorship of the 
Eev. W. B. Wellons, D.D., Thomas J. Melish, and W. C. 
McCune, issued both at Cincinnati, Ohio, and Suffolk, Vir- 
ginia. A copy is herewith presented. Again the " pro- 
ject," "scheme," and "aim" are manifest. The ring of 
determination travels through the tri-editorials. The 
" Christian Unity" says Mr. McCune, u begins its career 
with fixed purposes and aims. It will earnestly contend 
that in examining candidates for the ministry all tests shall 
be laid aside except such as develope the faith common to the 
evangelical family of Christians." (Specification V, Proof 
6). In the "Prospectus" Mr. Thrall is already taken to 
task for shrinking from a substantial, realistic, and bodily 
oneness of actual visible organization to the movement! 
The co-editor of Mr. McCune exclaims, " We must organ- 
ize, band ourselves together as ministers and churches ; this 
was what was meant in ~New York in October 1873, at Cin- 
cinnati, October 1874, and at Suffolk in 1875. Let the work 
of organization go on ! " The kingdom of G-od was now to 
" come with observation." Some Texans meet in Conven- 
tion at Somerville, April 30, 1875, and adopted the Organic 
Union plan. Dr. Wellons sweetly writes, " Lo there ! " 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout loom in the horizon shortly 
after ; Mr. McCune as sweetly murmurs, " Lo here ! " Was 
it not part and parcel of the same movement? 

And now, Moderator and Brethren, can there be a doubt 
on the mind of the Court that Mr. McCune is actually a 
member of a new anti-denominational association of min- 
isters, organized under a Special Basis, for the express pur- 



[136] 



pose of striking at Denominationalism, and beginning a re- 
construction of the Christian Church ? I have shown you 
the first fact, under Specification V, Proofs 2, 3, 6, when 
exhibiting Mr. McCune's Plurality theory of membership, 
that a new independent church -organization does exist, 
" known as the Union Christian Churches of America" — pro- 
claiming that it is no "sect," because it receives all Chris- 
tians, but is modeled after the apostolic type, on a non -ex- 
cluding " divine law of organization," as Mr. McCune calls 
it, or on " a New Testament Basis." I have shown you the 
second fact, that " any minister " who " adopts " this Basis 
of independent association, and asks to be " enrolled," is 
" enrolled at his own request" into the new fellowship, and 
is henceforth an integral part of the new organization, and 
is known as a "Union Christian minister," ministerially 
identified with that body, and that "project," "scheme," 
and " aim." I have shown you the third fact, also, that 
Mr. McCune's name is the topmost signature in the list of 
names appended to the " Basis of Union " addressed to all 
the ministers and churches of North America, — a Basis 
" devised " in Cincinnati, and adopted and signed October 
24, 1874, at the "Rooms of the Young Men's Christian As- 
sociation, Cincinnati, Ohio," where the Convention met, and 
confirmed at the Suffolk Convention, May, 1875. Signed, 
W. C. McCune and others. The fourth fact is irresistible, 
viz., that Mr. McCune has been "enrolled " upon that list, 
" at his own request," because he has complied with the 
conditions of entrance into the new organization, viz., 
adoption of the Basis. He may have enrolled himself for 
aught we know, for the Basis hails from the Booms of the 
Y oung Men's Christian Association, in Cincinnati, where it 
was unanimously adopted. He is, therefore, by his own 
act, a member of the new organization, for the purposes 
aforesaid. He has, by his own act, become subject to the 
jurisdiction of independent Councils and Conventions in 
general, an advisory jurisdiction, as is the case among all 
independent organizations, and, as I shall show, has become 
subject to the particular jurisdiction of an individual con- 
gregation, whose polity and creed he prepared for their 



[137] 



adoption upon this Basis, and in view of his own election 
as its pastor, — the minister being always, according to the 
independent polity, a member of the congregation, and eli- 
gible, by the congregation, to a seat in any Council or Con- 
vention, only as a " delegate" of the people. Having denied 
to the Presbyterian Denomination, as such, her right to be 
called " a Church " — that is, having denied the root princi- 
ple of Presbyterianism, the right of one ecclesiastical rule 
over a plurality of Congregations organically bound under 
that rule, and having, by consequence, denied the right of 
all courts built upon that rule, and again, by consequence, 
the right of this Presbytery to say whether he shall accept 
a call or not, and be re-examined and installed or not, and 
whether he may belong to the new Anti-Denominational 
Association or not, he has flung his Presbyterianism to the 
winds, thrown our authority back in our faces, and chosen 
Independency as his polity. All this he has done, yet 
claiming his right to remain on the roll of this Presbytery 
for "indorsement" and "good standing." There is a 
bravery in all this, which could only be developed where a 
corresponding undervaluation or neglect by Presbyterians 
themselves exists in reference to their own Government 
and Discipline. The course of Mr. McCune is utterly un- 
accountable on any other hypothesis. He is, and has been, 
for years, an actual and active member of the new Associa- 
tion of Independent Union Christian Ministers and Churches 
in America. It is thus he has felt at perfect liberty, un- 
challenged, " unquestioned," while a member of this body, 
to carry on a crusade, even in its own bosom, and in the 
bounds of the Synod, as in the bounds of the neighboring 
Synod of Kentucky, against the doctrines and polity of the 
Presbyterian Church. Moderator, it is not true " there is not 
much harm in all this." It is disloyalty to the Church, whose 
Standards of doctrine and order he has sworn to support, if 
his vows were not a mental reservation, "Juravi lingua, 
mentem injuratam gero ! " 

And now, Moderator, what avails it that Mr. McCune, 
only three days before this Court assembled, appears again, 
in public print four columns long, Commercial, December 



[138] 



30, 1876, to plead his case before the public, and, by desper- 
ate effort, seek to produce the impression, in advance, that he 
belongs to no anti-denominational association at all ? that 
neither he nor the signers of the new Anti-Denominational 
"Basis of Union " are members of a distinct Association, de- 
signed to be permanent, with independent jurisdiction, under 
rules and laws and a creed and polity of their own construc- 
tion and adoption ? What avails it to say now, as judicial 
traverse comes on, that the " Basis of Union" was only a 
" tentative " platform for transient annual meetings, like 
Sunday School or Temperance Conventions, and nothing 
more was meant ? Was, then, Mr. McCune's paper edited 
only for the sake of a Convention ? Was his missionary 
propagandism in behalf of Organic Union, upon such prin- 
ciples as he advocated, only for the sake of a Convention? 
Sir, the apology is too thin, the disguise " too gauzy I" The 
" Basis of Union " is a Basis of church-fellowship, upon 
a special creed, upon a special polity, and for a special end, 
the reorganization of the whole Church of Christ, as the 
sounding language goes on. But now a metamorphosis 
occurs. Ovid tells us of Callisto changed to a bear, Ac- 
taeon to a stag, Jupiter to the form of Diana, and the sis- 
ters of Phaethon to weeping trees. Bossuet changes the 
dragon to a " milk-white hind !" Mr. McCune changes a 
Denomination to a " Convention," " a mere Convention ! " 
Well, Sir, allow me to ask, when the Convention adjourns, 
where do the " Union Ministers and Churches" belong? 
Where is the " Union ?" The Convention is expressly 
called " a Convention of the Union Christian Churches." 
There is an organization behind the Convention, and of 
which the Convention is a representative by " delegation " 
from the " Union." It is a vain excuse. In that Union 
Association, banded together upon its distinctive " Basis of 
Union" are two classes of ministers and members ; those 
who have already severed their previous denominational 
relations, and those who " do not deem it expedient to 
sever existing denominational relations." Where, Moder- 
ator, when the Convention adjourns, do those who have 
severed their previous denominational relations belong ? 



[139] 



They belong where Mr. McCune and the others who have 
not so done belong ; they belong to the new Association 
of "Union Christian Churches and Ministers," into whose 
Organic Union bosom all the delegates retire upon adjourn- 
ment. They are under the dictio juris of that Association, 
i. e., under the jurisdiction of its creed, laws, polity, aim, 
and counsel. They have one jurisdiction in their Organic 
Church-tellowship. Mr. McCune has two, distinct and 
conflicting, a distinct " membership," a distinct " Church- 
fellowship." The organization is expressly said to be ef- 
fected by " adoption " of a written " Basis of Union " and 
" enrollment" as members, the way in which every human 
organization is effected. Its "initial step" is expressly de- 
clared to be (1) the mutual voluntary reception of " each 
other," the first foundation, and (2) the reception of others. 
Is it only a Convention, with no Organic Union behind it 
of any Christian ministers, that presumes to posit a creed, 
a polity, and terms of admission into the visible Church? 
Is it a Convention that says, " We require no assent to any 
denominational peculiarity as a bond of fellowship f ' And 
that "we will receive every Christian into our fellowship, 
and every Christian minister who teaches the common 
faith of the gospel." Who are the "We and Our?" Are 
they " delegates" simply to a Convention from no 'Associ- 
ation? "Fellowship" of what? Is it "fellowship" of a 
" Convention " whose members, after all, are not delegates? 
Is the " attempt to induce Christians to unite on the basis 
of their agreements " only an attempt to hold a Conven- 
tion? Is the boasted Organic Union, after all, only the 
dissolving feature of an annual " Convention ?" What, 
then, meant the cry, "We must organize; organize! Band 
ourselves together as ministers and Churches !" The des- 
perate pleading of Mr. McCune only establishes with in- 
vincible demonstration the fact the prosecution assert and 
prove, that he is, by his own act, a member of a new Or- 
ganic Union Church organization, whose purpose is the de- 
struction of denominations, as such, and the reconstruc- 
tion of the whole Church on a New Testament Basis. The 
prosecution submit that the proof is redundant to sustain 



[140] 

the specification before any Court in the world, that Mr. 
McCune has advocated and promoted the new anti-denom- 
inational association of independent " Union Christian 
Churches of America," of which he is a member, precisely 
as the specification sets forth — a movement utterly antag- 
onistic in its principles to the Standards of the Presby- 
terian Church Mr. McCune has vowed to support. 

The prosecution will not dwell on all the law points. They 
have already been quoted. The reference Digest, p. 304 (8), 
expressly forbids such conduct. The reference, p. 44 (II. V), 
asserts the right of the Presbyterian Church to have her 
own distinctive terms of communion, and her own polity, 
without subjection to a crusade against them by her own 
ministers. The references, pp. 411, 399, exhibit the vows 
of Mr. McCune to maintain the Standards, the truths, of 
the Gospel, and study the peace, unity, and purity of the 
church. The reference, p. 55 (6), requires him 66 to teach 
and preach according to the form of sound words in our 
confession and catechisms, and avoid and oppose all error 
contrary thereto," which he has not done in this new 
movement. The reference, Baird's Digest, p. 626, disquali- 
fies from ministerial fellowship in the Presbyterian Church, 
the man who is "confirmed and resolute in propagating his 
(erroneous) opinions among the people by a variety of methods, 
to the great scandal of the church, seducing and perplexing 
the unwary and unstable," departing from the truth and 
opposing his church. The reference, p. 630, Baird's Digest, 
expresses the pain of the General Assembly " that novel 
opinions, or at least opinions presented in a novel dress and 
appearance, have been openly and extensively circulated, and 
excited unusual alarm, while at the same time they have 
given rise to much contention ;" and takes occasion to declare 
its " uniform adherence to the doctrines contained in our 
Confession of Faith, in their plain and intelligible form, 
and its own firm determination to maintain them against 
all innovations," earnestly entreating that "nothing sub- 
versive of these doctrines may be suffered to exist or to be cir- 
culated amongst the churches." Neither ministry, Presbytery, 
or Synod may indulge such license, or be guilty of such 



[141] 



departure from our denominational law, and no minister 
may plead in justification of his course the transgression 
of any of the courts of the church, or encouragement by 
any of their members. The reference, p. 638, bids us 
" consider the pernicious tendency of the present disorgan- 
izing plan " of those who, under the specious pretense of 
honoring the Sacred Scriptures, would persuade you to "re- 
ject all written or printed creeds and forms of discipline," and 
whose polity is that " Christians have no power over one 
another to cut off, or exclude, or unite." It is the scheme of 
Mr. McCune drawn to the life and condemned. The refer- 
ence, p. 648, delivers the unambiguous judgment of the as- 
sembly that the propagation of such doctrines " ought to 
subject the person or persons so doing, to be dealt with by 
their respective Presbyteries according to the discipline of the 
church relative to the propagation of errors," especially, p. 
651 (77), if either he or they " manifest a lofty mind and 
independent spirit that will not be controlled by authority." 
It is not possible, Moderator, for our church more thor- 
oughly to condemn the course of Mr. McCune, nor is it 
possible for him more thoroughly to set at naught the 
Standards, or renounce the vows that bind him to subjec- 
tion, and the study of the church's peace, unity, and purity. 
Such conduct generally allowed would be subversive of the 
constitution of the church, and destructive of its very ex- 
istence. I pass to the second specification. 

SPECIFICATION II. 

Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 

This specification unfolds for us the next important fact 
in the progress of organic union in our midst. It was not 
enough for Mr. McCune that the Synod of Cincinnati, in 
1870, should authorize his peculiar views and principles to 
be circulated throughout its bounds, nor that its pulpits 
should welcome their advocacy before the people, nor that 
Mr. McCune should be enrolled as a member of the new de- 
nomination. A particular, visible incorporation of differing 
ecclesiastical views and differing doctrinal beliefs must be 



[142] 



experimented into organic oneness in the bosom of the 
Presbytery of Cincinnati. Undismissed members who be- 
longed to five different denominations must unite under Mr. 
McCune's lead in a new organization, on Mr. McCune's Or- 
ganic Union Basis, prepared by him for their adoption. The 
new organization is effected. The fineness becomes extinct" 
in the oneness, and the oneness emerges by organic evolution 
from the fiveness. The unity in which the flock dwells, is 
not an inward unity, for " local convenience," upon a mini- 
mum quid examination. It matters not, at any time, whether 
suppliants for entrance can bring certificates, or whether 
they do not believe the Bible infallible, or Christ properly 
human. If they have "Saving Faith" without this, all 
well. The undismissed members go in " on profession." 
With most of them we have nothing to do. It is " outside 
our jurisdiction " as rulers in the house of God. It is with 
Mr. McCune, in this movement, we are concerned. The 
more we contemplate the movement, as it took shape under 
his hands, the more our wonder is challenged. It is a the- 
ological seminary and asylum. It trains and examines 
" candidates for the ministry." Specification V, Proof 4. It 
receives " all Christians," and all " ministers " too. (Ibid.) 
It is liberal moreover. A candidate for the sacred office is 
not required to explain " the sense in which he receives 
every verse of Scripture from the beginning of the Bible to the 
end of it." The exercise would be too long. Few would 
take orders at this rate ! It is presumable, however, that 
those who do, like Ezra, the scribe of old, " give the sense" 
on the few texts submitted to their consideration, give it so 
as not to get outside the limits of the " common faith," i. e., 
outside the points on which all agree as to personal salva- 
tion, while differing on everything else. Nothing more is 
needed. Theology is a dry subject. The day of " dogma" 
is gone. The hour of Organic Union has come. There is 
a slight departure here, a little inconsistent with the anti- 
creed rule that no " human deductions " are allowable, and 
that all that is needed is assent to words " expressed in God's 
own language" as that language is " commonly received." 
The new organization informs us that it is actually "about 



[143] 



to send out into the world " on a few well selected texts, or 
on the Basis of the Evangelical Alliance, either, the candi- 
date may choose which, " those who are to preach the ever- 
lasting gospel," L e., the " common faith " as defined. It is 
evidently a parent society, though an infant yet! Mr. 
McCune's five in one have swept the whole compass of de- 
nominational activities, and gathered all the functions into 
urtity. The whole " General Association" is mirrored in 
microcosm at Mt. Lookout. As to its officers, its polity 
speaks on this wise, that any one of them can be hopelessly 
turned out of office, without appeal, by a simple "request" 
of a " majority of the members voting at a meeting, duly 
called for that purpose" This is one of the " Regulations 
of Expediency." As to discipline, the whole body simply 
" withdraw " from an offender. See Specification V, Proof 
4. That Mr. McCune is the veritable father of this Linwood 
and Mt. Lookout " Union Christian Church" the preparer 
and publisher of its Declaration, Preliminary Statements, 
Basis of Fellowship, and Regulations of Expediency, that 
he " actively co-operated in organizing it," " desired " to 
organize it, and " agreed with others " to organize it, and 
for the expressly avowed purpose of 'putting into practical em- 
bodiment his Organic Union Principles, and that this was 
what he meant, among other things, in his editorial of Aug. 
1, 1875, three months only before the organization, saying 
he had " fixed aims and purposes," and what his co-editor 
meant, among other things, saying same date, u we must 
organize, band ourselves together as ministers and churches, 
Let the work of organization go on !" and what the rebuke 
to Mr. Thrall meant, same date (Specification V, Proof 6), 
will, I think, become evident to the Court. Its Declar- 
ation and Regulations of Expediency all flowed from the 
ink of Mr. McCune's pen. If the preparation of these 
by Mr. McCune is denied, the prosecution will introduce 
and submit additional testimony, which, however, they 
prefer not to submit unless by necessity. The Linwood 
and Mt. Lookout Manual was sent to many members of 
Presbytery previous to the installation of Mr. McCune. 
It is here upon your table. It needs no signature. It is 



[144] 



one large signature itself. "Dr. Skinner/' says Mr. Mc- 
Cune, January 12, 1876, six weeks after the organization, 
" seems to make a painfully elaborate effort to prove, by 
some rather confusing quotations, that the Church of Lin- 
wood and Mt. Lookout is responsible for the publication of 
the Declaration and Preliminary Statements which accom- 
pany the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian Church 
of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. Certainly; who ever 
thought otherwise ? His ulterior object seems to be to make 
me also responsible. I will gladly relieve him of any further 
trouble in this direction. I hereby declare that I heartily 
approve of the Declaration and Preliminary Statements ac- 
companying the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, and respectfully 
commend them to the attention of the Christian public." I 
am sure every court would decide, especially a moral court, 
these words to be a veritable evidence of the Authorship of 
the Manual. The Prosecution is relieved of any doubt what- 
ever. If the court, however, is not satisfied, we will intro- 
duce what will remove any doubt at once. Proof 4, Speci- 
fication V, Charge I, reads thus : " We, giving to each other 
evidence that we are Christ's disciples, propose, by the help 
of God, to organize a 4 Union Christian Church,' in accord- 
ance with the precepts and examples of the New Testa- 
ment." " We will, on scriptural evidence, cordially receive 
all Christians into this Church." " We will receive as 
ministers all who give us scriptural evidence that they are 
in fact ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, etc." " We will ; 
we will ; we deem, etc." What can be plainer from all these 
utterances than that Mr. McCune did thoroughly identify 
himself with those who proposed to form a new church, 
and was as truly one of their number in this whole work 
as any other person in that number ? He himself is one of 
the " we " who propose to do this thing, and the attempt to 
evade this identification by pleading that he did not 
organize the Church is utterly vain. If the " we " organized 
it, then he also organized it, for he was one of the " we." 
The installation over, and the charge being made that be- 
cause no elders had been ordained, the society had no 



[145] 

ordained officers of its own, Mr. McCune exclaims, "Does 
he deny that I am an officer, then, or does he deny my 
ordination ? which ?" Proof 2, Specification II, Charge II. 
Our ordination of Mr. McCune does not make him an officer 
in that church. Installation over an Independent or Con- 
gregational Church does make him an officer in that 
church, and does bind him to the administration of law 
and order in the house of God according to the special rules 
of that congregation. He is himself under those rules, not 
above them. He is a de facto member of the Church itself. 
In a congregation organized from five different denomina- 
tions, by the agency of a Presbyterian minister, expressly 
throwing the Westminster Standards overboard, as the whole 
Congregational Body in this country had now done, and de- 
nouncing all human-made creeds, and the enforcement of 
denominational laws and enactments as essentially sinful, and 
even dispensing with one or both of the sacraments, if any 
object to receive them, mere danger has already passed into 
open destruction of the truth and order of Christ's House. 
To plead historic congregational "usage" here, is to plead 
a nonentity. In 1871, in National Ecumenical Council at 
Oberlin, Ohio, the witness, Mr. Halley, tells us that con- 
gregational historic usage was thrown to the winds with 
the "Westminster Standards for the sake of a " new depar- 
ture " in the interest of the Oberlin platform of liberalism 
that would receive, tolerate and fellowship the Linwood and 
Mt. Lookout Church, just as it is, with all its enormities. 
To such a church as this, organized on such a foundation, 
by Mr. McCune and others, Mr. McCune has joined himself. 
Repelling the charge, made by myself, that the spiritual 
government of the Church was in the hands of unordained 
committee-men, and that the Church had no ordained 
officers, and was, therefore, not scripturally organized, he 
exclaims, as I have said, " Does he deny that I am an 
officer then, or does he deny my ordination ?" The question 
was not whether Mr. McCune was ordained, but whether 
that particular society had of itself, and claiming as its own, 
any ordained " officers " of the body. Mr. McCune comes 
forward, therefore, upon the fact of his installation, to affirm 



[146] 



the further fact that he is an "officer" of that particular 
society as well as an " officer" in his own. He is subject to 
its creed, laws, polity, and aim, such as they have been 
voted to be, and such as he specially prepared for the new 
" Christian Union Church at Linwood and Mt. Lookout." 
He is under that " dictio juris" of that vote of adoption by 
that society. He is bound by it, and must conform to it. 
He made the whole thing himself. 

Proof 3 shows the time claimed for the so-called organiza- 
tion, and the distinctive title of the new society, as given 
above. The month of November, 1875, is the general date. 
The 7th, 8th, 10th and 24th are testified to as the special dates, 
by the Herald and Presbyter, the Presbytery's Investigating 
Committee, and a member of the organization whose testi- 
mony is given in the Presbyterian. It is expressly stated in 
that testimony, that although Mr. McCune was not a 
pastor, at that time, i. e. not acting " officially" yet he was 
present at the so-called organization "desiring" that just 
such an organization as it is, on precisely such a Basis as 
he made for it, " might be effected." How strong that 
desire was, and with what aims, we all know. Furthermore, 
upon his own confession, he was laboring a whole "year" 
among the people before the so-called organization took 
place, a people who were of various denominations, and who, 
for some time, had been holding union services, in the ordi- 
nary way, in such cases. It was a grand, a favorable oppor- 
tunity, under the plea of uniting merely for " local conveni- 
ence," to now venture the experiment of an " Organic Union 
Christian Church," on an anti-denominational Basis. It was 
" mutually agreed," he tells us, himself," that we would look 
toward the organization of a Union Church." So much the 
worse if such a Church, on such a Basis, was the meditation of 
his mind for a whole "year" before the so-called organiza- 
tion took place. Utterly beside the question it is, if he means 
to say, it was some other kind of " Union Church " than the 
one that finally emerged. Utterly beside the question, if 
he means to say that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout people 
are chargeable with the dangerous views and principles 
into which he indoctrinated them, or whether he inocu- 



[147] 



lated them, or they inoculated him. It is of no sort of con- 
sequence to this Presbytery, in this case, how many or how 
few worked up the movement with Mr. McCune. He is 
the preparer and the author of its Declaration and its 
Creed, its Basis and its Polity. He has been trying to do 
for Ohio what some others did for Virginia and North 
Carolina — organize a Christian Church for himself, on his 
own plan, and call it Apostolic ! He says " I approved the 
movement," as though he were a bystander looking on and 
giving his opinion ! He did more than approve it. He 
says " I counseled it," as though his advice had simply been 
sought. He did more than " counsel it." He says, " I co- 
operated with those who did organize this church,"" as though 
he did not organize it himself. This is his manner of state- 
ment. Moderator, he did more than " co-operate " in the 
organization. He " operated " the organization itself, if any 
organization took place before the Council met. Mr. Mc- 
Cune devised and projected the whole movement from be- 
ginning to end, in the shape it took. He molded it to his 
will. He organized it himself, as truly as, and more truly 
than ever did any committee of Presbytery organize any 
church within our bounds, if it ever was organized before 
the Council met. The people who were organized into the 
organization did not organize it. The material molded 
into shape is not the molder. The original constituent ele- 
ments out of which a thing is composed is not the plastic 
hand that imposes the form. E"o, sir. This ecclesiastical 
protoplasm is the work of Mr. McCune alone as the sole 
Organizer of the Organic Union Church of Lin wood and 
Mt. Lookout, if it was organized at all before the Council 
met. He told us, August 1, 1875, only three months before, 
that he meant work, he meant business ! And he has kept 
his word. Mt. Lookout answered to the call of Suffolk, 
" Organize /" Listen to the testimony of an officer of the 
Congregation (Proof 3) : " Mr. McCune acted merely in the 
capacity of a Christian, desiring that such organization 
might be effected, his position only giving him somewhat 
greater prominence in the matter than any other brethren." 
Oh, Mr. Moderator, it is a vain excuse, this word " merely" 



[148] 



this word "only" this word "somewhat" And is the po- 
sition of a Presbyterian minister of twenty years' standing, 
one who claims as an ambassador of Christ, by virtue of 
Christ's call to him, to bear rule in His house, only "some- 
what" greater than that of unorganized individuals? 
"Somewhat" more "prominent!" Moderator and breth- 
ren, Mr. McCune is the creator of that organization such 
as it was. It is his workmanship, absolutely, so far as its 
ecclesiastical creed and form are concerned. It is the le- 
gitimate outgrowth of his Organic Union principles, the 
fruit of Organic Union Seed, planted a "year" before, his 
outstanding and embodied "project," "scheme," and 
" aim," the realization of his ardent hopes after long years 
of zealous advocacy and toil. It is the body of which Mr. 
McCune is the head, and it stands to-day, the creation of a 
member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, upon principles 
destructive of his own and all other evangelical denomi- 
nations. Mr. McCune's friends may seek to provide a 
shelter for his responsibility, by denying to this Presbytery, 
upon its Committee's request, the courtesy of the inspection 
of the records of their so-called organization, but that one 
fact will shine, in the trial of this case, as a demonstration, 
clear and convincing, that the Organic Union movement 
" co-operates " with ministers in disrespect of their own 
denominational laws and organic enactments, and secretes 
the evidence from the Court to which their pastors belong. 
That one act of refusing a courtesy, shall I not say a moral 
right, which no so-called " Sectarian" denomination would 
refuse to another, is sufficient ground for this Presbytery's 
order to Mr. McCune to cease his labors at that place. 
Were a foreign government to so act toward the United 
States, in the case of a civil minister, recalled to answer for 
transgression of the Constitution and laws, we know what 
the result would be. Such is the beauty of two jurisdic- 
tions, one for the pastor, another for the church ! But the 
evidence is ample. And, as a Presbyterian minister, I 
solemnly aver, that no minister of the Presbyterian Church 
has any right to, either create, operate, co-operate, counsel, 
approve, or even lend his countenance for any plea, under 



[149] 



any consideration of any kind, to the organization or rec- 
ognition of a church built on the principles Mr. McCune 
devised for the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Society. 

The Specification alleges that, Mr. McCune having " co- 
operated" in this so-called organization, accepted a "call" 
to become its pastor, was examined, and installed by an ir- 
responsible, because undelegated " Council," without leave of, 
or dismission from his Presbytery, and against advice, and is, 
at present, the pastor of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
Church. The evidence of the acceptance of the call is 
taken from collaterals Eos. 3 and 4 of the Investigating 
Committee's Report, ■'No. 3 being the statement of certain 
members of the " Council" that installed Mr. McCune, and 
from No. 4, being the statement of Mr. McCune himself, 
both affirming the fact. The evidence of the examination 
and installation of Mr. McCune by an irresponsible, be- 
cause undelegated Council, is taken from collateral No. 3, 
being the statement of four out of " ten ministers connected 
with four evangelical denominations," also from the account 
of the proceedings of the installation service, published 
December 17, 1875, in the Cincinnati Gazette. The evi- 
dence that all this was done without leave of, or dismission 
from the Presbytery is taken from collateral No. 4, found 
in Mr. McCune' s own words : " If there is any Presbyterian 
law requiring a minister to first gain the consent of his Pres- 
bytery, before accepting a pastorate outside of Presbyterian 
jurisdiction, I have no knowledge of it." "If there is such 
a law," he says, " I will plead ignorance and indifference ! " 
Proof 5. The evidence, like most of it already furnished, 
is unnecessary, for the facts are officially before this Court 
already. The public indorsement by the Council of Mr. 
McCune, as "an intelligent and thoughtful expositor of the 
Scripture, and a reliable teacher on all vital points of doctrine," 
is also given, together with notice of his installation, ac- 
cording to the programme of the Council. The advice 
given to Mr. McCune was advice given by myself in the 
letter which I addressed to Mr. McCune, upon receipt of his 
invitation, or the published invitation of the Committeemen 
of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, to be present and give sane- 



[150] 



tioD and encouragement to the undertaking. The evidence 
that Mr. McCane is pastor, at present, of the Linwood and 
Mt. Lookout Church, is referred to as upon record in the 
Minutes of the General Assembly, put there by order of the 
Presbytery, and also to the Eecords of the Presbytery at 
Mt. Auburn. September 13, 1876, then inserting the omitted 
order of Mr. McCune's enrollment as "Pastor" on the sta- 
tistical report of the clerk, April 13, 1876, at Glendale, to the 
then oncoming General Assembly, thereby giving official 
sanction to the installation of Mr. McCune by said Council, 
and to his present pastoral relation. 

But. Moderator, before passing to the lavs* of our church 
condemning this whole procedure of Mr. McCune, I must 
refer to the attempt of the defendant to shelter himself 
under the wing of Congregationalism, which, at Oberlin, 
Ohio, in 1871, abandoned the Westminster Standards in 
order to make room for just such doctrinal organizations 
as that of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. This we have had 
in express terms in the testimony before us from the de- 
fense. It is true, and can not be denied, that in the pre- 
amble to the resolution of the council, the church of Lin- 
wood and Mt. Lookout is carefully and precisely announced 
to the work! as an *•' an denominational" church, and there- 
fore not Congregational. It is true that Mr. Melish has 
testified that the Congregational body is a " sect,"' a " di- 
vision*'" or " separation''' from the " Body of Christ,' 5 one, 
among others, causing " an essentially sinful state of things." 
It is true that Mr. McCune himself is a member of another 
of these sinful denominational divisions'*' and insists on 
standing up)on its roll ; but all this matters not in the des- 
perate emergencies and exigencies of the defendant. If 
he can only show that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
church is what it is not, a Congregational church, a "sect," 
an " antiscriptural and sinful" separation from the "Body 
of Christ,''* he thinks he has saved his cause and can escape 
the charge that he is opposed to denominations, as such. I 
therefore occupy a little time in considering the Congrega- 
tional mode of organizing a church. 

This mode is based upon the fundamental principle of 



[151] 



Congregationalism, which differences it from bald Inde- 
pendency. That principle is, ecclesiastical affiliation, fra- 
ternity, and fellowship, not merely spiritual or moral. No 
individual church is a Congregational church. It stands 
alone, a pure and absolute separatist, without any church 
fellowship whatever. The word Congregationalism does 
not mean the association of individual members in any 
particular church. It means the ecclesiastical affiliation 
and association of many similarly organized churches by 
means of a council common to all. The word Congrega- 
tional relates to the fact of a number of congregations in 
ecclesiastical fellowship. Congregational churches are 
congregated, " affiliated and fraternized" churches, not 
merely Independent. Dexter on Congregationalism, p. 344. 
Now, their whole law of organization is based on this 
principle, and no churches are lawfully organized Congre- 
gational churches that are destitute of this formal asso- 
ciation. The assertion of this principle necessitates the 
following things as essential to a regularly organized Con- 
gregational church: 1. There can be no such church apart 
from a regularly organized council ; 2. There can be no 
regularly organized council apart from direct authority 
delegated from affiliated churches; 3. A regular church 
organization is effected by, with, and through the instru- 
mentality of a regularly delegated council only, whether 
that council consists of pastors alone, or of pastors and 
laymen. In Congregational usage and polity, to organize 
a church regularly there must be a " Letter Missive" from 
a committee of those proposing to form the church, di- 
rected, not merely to individuals, but to neighboring Con- 
gregational churches, to formally meet, appoint, and send 
delegates, bearing "full credentials," (1) to justify the exist- 
ence of the pro re nata council-itself, (2) to consult with the 
members as to the expediency of the movement, and (3) to 
form the church if the way be clear. This council, thus 
called, can not organize itself as a council except by read- 
ing the " letter missive" to the churches and the credentials 
of the delegates. The examination of the letters of dis- 
mission, the basis, and the suitableness of the parties, comes 



[152] 



next. If the way be clear, the council then votes to advise 
the persons named in the list to proceed to form the pro- 
posed church, not yet formed, and makes arrangement for 
public services by the council to promote this end — to wit, 
the sermon, reading of the basis, prayer of recognition, 
giving through the council the right hand of fellowship 
from the churches invited to the members about to form 
the new church, address to the church, prayer, and bene- 
diction. After the reading of the basis, the special act by 
which the new church is constituted, is the solemn public 
rising and assent of the parties named in the list to the 
basis read there and then in the council. After this, and 
not before, it is competent for the new church to elect its 
officers, and choose and call its pastor. 

Such is the Congregational polity and usage, upon the 
authority which Mr. McCune and Mr. Halley present to 
this Court as competent testimony in the case. Dexter, pp. 
162-166. Anything else than this is bald Independency. 
It is not Congregationalism because it lacks the fundamen- 
tal principle of " affiliation " of churches, the existence of 
the Council, and the actual presentation and reception, by 
delegated authority, of the right hand of fellowship. ]STow, 
Mr. Moderator, a cloudless sun, in mid heaven, on the fourth 
day of July, is not more clear than the fact that the Lin- 
wood and Mt. Lookout organization was as gross a viola- 
tion of Congregational polity and usage, as it was of Pres- 
byterian law itself. That polity and usage are pleaded in 
its justification. I affirm that neither one nor the other 
lends a shadow of right to such an abnormal and nondescript 
performance as that was. Mr. McCune claims that the organ- 
ization was effected before the Council met. I affirm that, 
when a Council is possible, Congregational polity requires 
the formation of the Church, its very inception as a Church, 
to take place at the time and in the very presence of a regu- 
larly delegated and regularly organized Council. I say that 
according to Congregational polity, every member of the Lin- 
wood and Mt. Lookout Council helped to organize that 
Church, on the very principles on which it was founded, Mr. 
McCune himself, and all the Presbyterians who were present. 



[153] 



I further affirm, on the very testimony introduced here by 
the defendant, that that Council was a usurpation in every 
particular, a novelty, an innovation, that even Independency 
itself would reject. It was an unauthorized, new thing 
under the sun, destitute of ecclesiastical authority through- 
out. It was a " voluntary club of men." I care not 
whether the organization is claimed to have been made 
either before the Council or at the Council, it was in the 
face of Congregational polity. There was no affiliation of 
Churches. No letter missive was sent to any Church what- 
ever. ISo credentials from any Church were presented, 
and any right hand of fellowship that was extended was 
simply the right hands of the individuals of the Council, 
who, if they deem themselves to be each one a Church, are 
the strangest churches this world has ever seen, being pas- 
tor, people, committee-men, deacons, trustees, choir, sex- 
ton, and church-edifice, all in each person. Moderator, 
they have no right to offer a right hand of fellowship. 
They had none to offer. The ceremony was a delusion. 
And whether we regard Mr. McCune's relations to the 
"we" who proposed to form the Church, and who, he says, 
did form the Church, or to the Council, he is still, on the 
evidence adduced in this Court, one of the parties in that 
transaction. 

But still further, while there is abundance to show that 
the organization of this Church was in violation of Con- 
gregational polity, there is enough to show also that the 
real organization of that Church, unauthorized as it was, 
did actually take place at the time of the Council, and not 
before. The special act by which a Congregational Church 
is constituted is declared by Dr. Dexter, who is one of the 
witnesses of the defendant, to be the public formal assent, 
before the Council, of the members named in the list, to 
their Basis of Faith and Covenant, read to them by the 
Council. Let it be carefully observed that the recognition 
of a new Church, and the constituting of a new Church, 
and the address to the new Church thus constituted, all 
occur during the same Council. Upon evidence in Court, 
these things did occur, viz., the list of members forming 



[154] 



the Church presented to the Council, the appointment of 
special services, the reading of the Basis, the recognition, 
the sermon, and the right hand of fellowship. Let it be 
further observed that the Preamble of the Eesolution offered 
in Council states that the parties to be organized had " now 
resolved to organize themselves permanently as a Church of 
Jesus Christ that they had " resolved upon an undenom- 
inational organization;" that the members of the Council 
were present to give them " fraternal counsel and aid in the 
undertaking in which thej were about to engage;" and the 
Eesolution, as adopted, declares that they were thereupon 
recognized as a Church.* 

Now, Sir, what have we in this matter? We have (1) the 
indubitable fact that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
was not organized previous to the Council, and that all 
argument to the contrary is mere special pleading, and a 
vain attempt at escape. We have (2) the fact that the mere 
appearance of Congregationalism, without its authority and 
regular mode of procedure, was given to the petitioners, 
and that was all. To have called a Council regularly, and 
to have proceeded regularly, would have been "denomina- 
tional" and this was just what this new movement proposed 
not to be in any sense whatever. The demonstration is 
complete that the Society was veritably organized at that 
time, and not before. But in either case, whether before 

* It is notorious, as every member of that Council knows,- that instead of 
the expression " permanently organize," the expression "provisionally or- 
ganize" was used in the Preamble, as read to that Council, and that Dr. 
Morris himself, upon the insistance of Mr. McCune, erased the word "pro- 
visionally" and inserted the word "permanently" in that Preamble. This 
is proof conclusive that the Church had not been organized either "pro- 
visionally" or "permanently" before the Council met. Furthermore, the 
invitation I received from Dr. Morris, dated December 13, 1875, only two 
days before the Council convened, used these words: "I think we can 
safely take part in the Council by which this Church is to be organized, and as 
safely instal Brother McCune as its pastor;" adding that he intends to 
"preach at his installation, and share in the work of organization" Fur- 
ther evidence could have been supplied, but the Presbytery, under the re- 
marks of Dr. Morris, denied to the Prosecution the right to introduce testi- 
mony rebutting the allegations of the defendant, who gathered up his wit- 
nesses from day to day, as he needed them for his case. 



[155] 



or at the time, it is no organization at all, even according 
to Congregational polity, but simply an independent asso- 
ciation of individuals, like any other independent society, 
whether medical, botanical, chemical, or agricultural. The 
defendant pleads that this is an exceptional case, and that 
the Congregational polity makes allowance for exceptional 
cases, and that the Church did organize itself before the 
Council met. The authority of Dr. Dexter and other testi- 
mony is relied upon to show that in an exceptional case in- 
dividuals may organize themselves into a church, but this 
is no more Congregationalism than it is Presbyterianism or 
Methodism, for all these denominations allow the same 
thing. Does this mean that the exception is the rule? that 
a Church not Congregation ally organized is congrega- 
tionally organized, or not Presbyterially organized is 
Presbyterially organized ? No, Sir, the exceptional 
church is not a Congregational church, and can not be, 
because it is the exception. It is a purely independent 
church. Moreover, what constitutes the exception ? It is 
not peculiarity of views. It is not variety of views. It is 
not even the impossibility of having a denominational 
church. It is the impossibility of calling a council, arising 
out of the fact that no sister Congregational churches are 
near or within reach. In other words, that the persons to 
be organized are so far from the Congregational " aque- 
duct," as Dr. Dexter calls it, that the people have to " dig 
down" anywhere in the sand to find "living water." Dex- 
ter, p. 238. I quote him as Mr. Halley quoted him. It is 
only when the people are "grouped upon some far Pacific 
slope, hundreds of miles from any church, of any name, 
with communication almost interdicted by the distance and 
peril of the way;" when they can not "put themselves into 
communication with the rest of the world;" when they 
would be subjected " to delay, trouble, expense, often disap- 
pointment and dispersion ;" when they are " abnormal and 
incomplete ;" when they are " in some extreme border wil- 
derness ;" and when it is " impossible to secure the counsel 
and co-operation of existing Congregational churches in 
the act of their formation." Dexter, pp. 238, 239, and 162. 



[156] 



To what desperate argument is the defendant compelled to 
resort in his plea that the Mt. Lookout church is an excep- 
tional case, that its peculiar organization was an independ- 
ency forced upon it by necessity of position and circum- 
stance impossible to be avoided ? Could the defendant 
himself, so near the Vine Street, Seventh Street, and Co- 
lumbia Street Congregational aqueducts, and so near so 
many other churches, plead that a " letter missive" could 
not be sent to those churches to convene and send delegates 
to organize his new enterprise? Will any one say that 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout, in the suburbs of Cincinnati, 
are like some isolated spot, some Sahara desert, or Pacific 
slope, or far off island in the sea, or extreme border wilder- 
ness, or Himalaya plain, utterly beyond the possibility of 
calling a regular Congregational council, and obliged by 
force of circumstances to extemporize an independent, un- 
authorized club of ministers and laymen to meet and form 
and recognize the new church? Moderator, the very na- 
ture of the defense is the strongest argument against it. Such 
was the common fame as to this new movement, in connec- 
tion with Mr. McCune's name, and such the opposition of 
the best part of our community, that none of our churches 
would have answered his letter missive except by respectful 
negation. It was not an exceptional case. By no dint of 
argument can such character be adduced to justify the 
council, the formation of the church such as it is, or any- 
thing connected with it. It is a new type of Independ- 
ency, a new movement, and nothing else — the assertion of 
extremest liberalism and individualism. It is organic 
unionism, in defiance of all scriptural polity, and of the 
polity of every organized denomination on earth. If our 
Congregational brethren choose to father, foster, receive, 
and fellowship the McCune enterprise, with its doctrines 
and its principles and its violation of even their own ex- 
ception, it is their Lookout and not our Lookout. The 
Oberlin platform of 1871 will gain no credit by the addi- 
tion. 

But now, Mr. Moderator, the Prosecution cares not a 
farthing whether this entire performance was Congrega- 



[157] 



tionalism or not. Mr. McCune may have a shadow of 
Congregationalism over his church and over himself as its 
pastor ; but if he had both shadow and substance, it would 
not help him in the least degree in the case before us. The 
true question is, not whether Mr. McCune has complied 
with Congregational polity and usage, but whether he has 
complied with Presbyterian polity and usage, in accordance 
with his solemn ordination vows ; whether he has not ad- 
vocated principles and doctrines, and put those principles 
and doctrines into practical form at Lin wood and Mt. 
Lookout in each and every of the particulars specified, 
which, if generally allowed, would utterly subvert Presby- 
terian law and order, and destroy the Presbyterian denom- 
ination itself, and turn it into the new departure of the 
Oberlin platform of 1871. 

That this whole procedure of Mr. McCune was in contra- 
vention of the organic law of the church, by which every 
Presbyterian minister is bound, is evident by reference to the 
standards. 1. As to the organization. E~o Presbyterian minis- 
ter has a right to organize any church whatever, either inside 
or outside the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, without leave 
granted or permitted by the Presbytery. Organization of 
Churches is a function reserved to the Presbytery by the 
Constitution, and no minister may usurp that function upon 
any pretext whatever, nor for any reason. " The Presby- 
tery has power to form, or receive, new congregations." 
Digest, p. 144. " Except in frontier and destitute settle- 
ments, where it is made a part of the business of evangel- 
ists to organize Churches without the previous action of 
some Presbytery directing or permitting it, etc., since in 
Chap. IV. (Form of Gov.) no mention is made of any such 
power being lodged in the hands of an individual minister." 
p. 173 (49). With the above exceptions, the rule is abso- 
lute. It is not limited to the formation of Churches merely 
within Presbyterian jurisdiction. If a minister may not 
usurp the Presbytery's function within her jurisdiction, he 
may not outside of it. The function of organization, in- 
side or outside, does not pertain to the individual, in any 
case, by virtue of his ministerial office. Organization is the 



[158] 



exercise of a joint or several power, and only exercised, 
individually, by express delegation, for unavoidable reasons, 
like that of the Pacific slope, or extreme border wilderness. 
It is no part of potestas ordinis, but solely of potestas juris- 
dictionis. Even Presbytery can only exercise it where she 
has jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is excited by "appli- 
cation V of petitioners desiring organization. But if a 
Presbytery may not organize outside of her jurisdiction, a 
fortiori, a minister may not, who has neither jurisdiction 
nor function to that end. Least of all may a minister or- 
ganize, within the very bosom of his own Presbytery, and 
under the very eyes of his brethren, a society founded on 
principles destructive of his own Church's faith and order; 
much less morally approve, counsel, co-operate, or create 
such an enterprise. Palpable, in any case, outside or inside, 
the jurisdiction of the Church was the breach of comity 
and order in the manner of the organization. The general 
rule for procedure in organization is that, " at the time ap- 
pointed for the purpose, after prayer for Divine direction 
and blessing, the presiding minister or committee should 
first receive from those persons to be organized into the 
new Church, if they have been communicants in other 
Churches, letters of dismission and recommendation ; and 
next examine and admit to a profession such persons as 
may offer themselves, and may be judged suitable to be re- 
ceived on examination." p. 107 (6). And this is the very 
rule Dexter himself has laid down. Picture the scene at 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout, on the representation here 
brought in. A company of church-members undismissed, 
voting the paper " we, giving to each other evidence that 
we are Christ's disciples, propose, by the help of God, to 
organize a Union Christian Church, etc.," thus attempting 
to become, ipso facto, a Church of Christ, Mr. McCune, a 
Presbyterian minister, presiding, and then the Council after- 
wards again receiving these names and recognizing the 
transaction ! The undismissed members "joining on profes- 
sion ! " Joining what ? And Mr. McCune justifying his 
course because it was " outside of our jurisdiction." I 
will not trust myself, Moderator, to speak what I feel, or 



[159] 



what I think of such a transaction, so in violation of any 
decent rule in any so-called " sectarian " denomination, and 
so in the face of that apostolic precept, " Let everything be 
done decently and in order." But, then, it is " Or- 
ganic Union," a gleam of the millennium ! 2. As to accept- 
ing a 'pastoral call. No Presbyterian minister may accept 
a call to become a pastor anywhere, except by leave of his 
Presbytery. The wisdom of this rule, as well as of the 
first, is the shield of the Presbyterian Church. " The call" 
from any Church, inside or outside our jurisdiction, "shall 
be presented by the Presbytery under whose care the per- 
son or persons called shall be." " 'No minister or candidate 
shall receive a call but through the hands of the Presby- 
tery." Digest, p. 409. " ~No minister shall be translated 
from one Church to another, nor shall he receive any call 
for that purpose, but by permission of the Presbytery." p. 
410. The rule is absolute, without any exceptions. In 
every case, "Commissioners properly authorized" must 
represent to the Presbytery the reasons for the call, then 
Presbytery will judge whether it shall be placed in his 
hands. Inside or outside her jurisdiction, this is the law. 
It is not difficult to see why no application from any per- 
sons in Linwood and Mt. Lookout was made to the Presby- 
tery of Cincinnati; nor is it credible that Mr. McCune, 
having been for twenty years a Presbyterian minister, 
should not well understand that, had any such application 
been made, it would have run at least the hazard of rejec- 
tion. Besides, it would have been utterly inconsistent with 
the principles of Mr. McCune and his new enterprise to ask 
any favors of, or recognize " distinctive," " denomin- 
ational laws." It was the same principle of resistance 
to such enactments, and whereby Mr. McCune was embold- 
ened to usurp the Presbyterian power of organization, 
even where the Presbytery had no jurisdiction, that repeated 
itself in the acceptance of a call to a pastoral charge in the 
very bosom of the Presbytery, without her permission. Inde- 
pendency and Organic Union simply determined to treat with 
indifference and disrespect, the laws of the Presbyterian 
Church, as well as of the Congregational Church, in the 



[160] 



case of her own ministers. Mr. McCune was intelligent in 
all this, and acted consistently with his independent polity. 
His plan was indexed from the first. 3. As to the Council, 
Examination, and Installation. It was a purely voluntary, 
extemporized, and undelegated affair, convened not accord- 
ing to Congregational usage. The exceptional case had no 
existence here. It represented nobody. There was not a 
delegate in it. No sister churches sent or accredited any 
representatives to it. It was not countenanced by any duly 
organized or actually recognized Church whatever. The 
Linwood and Mount Lookout Church is, to this hour, 
without ecclesiastical recognition from any denominations 
or churches whatever. It was the expedient of Mr. McCune 
and his friends. Any company of ministers gathered on the 
street, at any time, and turning aside to any room, to vote 
and do anything they pleased, upon the personal request 
of anybody, would be as genuine a Church Council as was 
this. It was no Church Council whatever. It was an Or- 
ganic Union " Convention," met to indorse Mr. McCune's 
enterprise, and give it the " right hand of fellowship," from 
nobody but themselves, as also to give Mr. McCune himself an 
indorsement, and form a pastoral relation between himself 
and Linwood and Mount Lookout Church. It was known, 
well known, that Mr. McCune had not obtained leave of 
his Presbytery, for it was a common conversation when the 
invitation to the Council and the Manual were transmitted 
to certain persons of the Presbytery. Our Standards, and 
our practice as a Church, recognize no such proceeding as 
that one of our ministers may, by indirection, secure an in- 
stallation for himself in such a way. We have allowed our 
ministers, under special circumstances, to take part in or- 
thodox Congregational Councils, when they are properly 
called, and in a rare case to be installed over an orthodox 
Congregational Church. What we shall do since the Ober- 
lin " New Departure " remains to be seen. But we do not 
allow them to sit in Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, or 
Quaker Councils, much less in a Council called by no 
Churches, and extemporized for the purpose of giving the 
right hand of fellowship to an enterprise built upon a Basis 



[161] 



and a Creed so destructive as that of Linwood and Mount 
Lookout. Mr. McCune's resort to such an expedient, for 
the purpose of securing installation, was an aggravated vi- 
olation of our law requiring him not to receive any call, 
anywhere, without leave of his Presbytery. The liberty 
that will allow Mr. McCune's course, in this matter,\is a 
liberty that will allow any member of this Presbytery to 
go and organize with others, or co-operate in organizing, a 
Baptist Church, or an Episcopalian, or a Quaker Church, 
or any kind of a Church on any kind of Basis, just as well. 
There is no limit to such liberty. Any minister may be 
instrumental in calling any number of his brethren to- 
gether, at any time, and to constitute themselves into a so- 
called " Council," do what they choose, responsible to none, 
and call themselves " delegates " or representatives of 
Churches, when they represent no Churches, because dele- 
gated by none. It is boundless license. Under such aus- 
pices, Mr. McCune was installed. The testimony is clear. 
" Those in attendance were not delegated by any ecclesiastical 
bodies, but came simply as individuals," upon the invitation 
of Mr. McCune's Church, organized out of undismissed 
members, and after its own fashion. This is not in " accord- 
ance with a familiar congregational usage." Congrega- 
tional usage never knew of such an instance. Everything 
was done " entirely on their own responsibility " and the fact 
that members of that Council were " Christian men " does 
not help the matter. By a Council, composed in this way, 
Mr. McCune secured his installation, having first been re- 
examined, and then indorsed as " an intelligent and thought- 
ful expositor of the Scriptures, and a reliable teacher on all 
points of doctrine." That Mr. McCune again violated 
the law of the Presbyterian Church is clear. If he may 
not accept a call, without permission of. the Presbytery, he 
may not be instrumental in organizing a Church on a new 
Basis, and then instrumental in developing a new kind of 
Council to recognize that Church, and then again to re-ex- 
amine and install him on a call he had no right to accept, 
a call made out by undismissed members belonging to other 
churches still. Mr. McCune was as much bound to ask 



[162] 



leave of his Presbytery to be installed as to accept a call. 
He knew this well in his experience as a pastor. If it be- 
longs to Presbytery " to examine " and " install " ministers, 
it belongs to Presbytery to permit them, or forbid them to 
be installed by any Council, or by any court in the world. 
Digest, p. 144 (VIII). But it was all part and parcel of 
Mr. McCune's Organic Union scheme to act in this way. 
The conviction, in his soul, that the enforcement of " de- 
nominational laws " and "organic enactments" is an op- 
pression of the conscience, and a deprivation of Christian 
and ministerial liberty, and his determination to ex- 
hibit his Organic Union freedom to the world, prompted 
him to violate the whole law of his Church in 
one bold movement, proclaim his doctrines, start a 
"Union Christian Church," receive a call, get up a 
council, be re-examined, re-indorsed, and installed over the 
church, all without dismission from or leave of his Presby- 
tery. It was a bold move, an intelligent move. All that 
remained to be done, in order to make the triumph com- 
plete, was to officially enrol him as " Pastor," so affixing 
the imprimatur and sanction of the Presbytery to his in- 
stallation, under all the circumstances, and so confirming 
bis relation to the Linwood and Mt. Lookout church, an 
act formally done by the Presbytery at Glendale, April 13, 
1876. And this, too, in face of the public discussion be- 
tween himself and the Herald & Presbyter, the latter warn- 
ing him in the following words, when speaking of what it 
calls his " project," 6:6 scheme," " aim," viz. : " We are at 
loss to understand how Mr. McCune can be willing to re- 
tain a connection with the Presbyterian Church ! We should 
suppose that he would pass at once from an old organiza- 
tion that is unauthorized and extra-Scriptural to a new one 
on a Eew Testament Basis ! " (Proof 6.) The Presbyterian 
Church of the Eeunion, in the name of her Standards, 
lifts her voice of remonstrance against the course pursued 
by Mr. McCune herein. Boldly, Mr. McCune steps forth 
to say : " I have violated no Presbyterian law whatever, in ac- 
cepting my present pastorate, nor in anything I have done per- 
taining to the Union Christian Church at Linwood and ML 



[163] 



Lookout!!!" He does more. He challenges the right of 
this court to call him to account for the propagation of his 
principles. Appealing to the progress of organic union 
views, and Oberlin Congregationalism within the last de- 
cade, and the encouragement received since his connection, 
ten years ago, with this Presbytery, he says : " This might 
have been a fair question eight or ten years ago, but it is cer- 
tainly too late now V (Proof 5.) Under cover of the plea 
that, because the Linwood and Mt. Lookout church is 
" outside Presbyterian jurisdiction" therefore, he, a minister 
of the Presbyterian Church, is not required to get permis- 
sion from his Presbytery to accept a call and be installed, 
he says : " Any petty question about the formality of first 
asking leave, may interest hair-splitting ecclesiastical 
lawyers, whose vocation it is to tithe mint, anise, and cum- 
min. If Presbytery says the thing done is right, I will be 
content. If she says I should have first asked leave, I will 
plead ignorance and indifference " (Proof 6); in plain Saxon, 
" I will say, I didn't know, and I don't care ;" this shall 
be my plea. This was said, in the Presbyterian, February 
12, 1876. The Presbytery's official enrollment of Mr. Mc- 
Cune as " Pastor " of Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
was April 13, 1876, just two months after ! He judges that, 
because the church is " outside " of jurisdiction, he has a 
right to act as if he were outside of jurisidction also ! that 
jurisdiction over the person and conduct of a minister de- 
pends upon jurisdiction over the particular church with 
which he is connected, whereas it rests upon these two facts 
alone (1), that he is himself a member of the Presbytery, 
no matter where his church may be, and (2), that the laws 
transgressed pertain to the minister, and not to the church. 
Mr. McCune can not divest himself, at pleasure, of his 
ordination vows, nor relieve himself of obedience to these 
laws on the plea that his church is " outside of Presbyterian 
jurisdiction," or on the plea of ignorance ; ignorantia juris 
non excusat. Outside or inside, it is all the same so far as 
his membership and these laws, made for ministers, and 
not for churches, are concerned. Any dispute of this 
fundamental doctrine, he calls a " petty question." Any 



[164] 



defense of it, a " hair-splitting vocation of ecclesiastical 
lawyers, tithing mint, anise, and cummin." If arraigned 
for violating it, he says, " I don't know, and I don't care." 
Such is Organic Union ! 

Moderator, I am well aware that, as against the posi- 
tions the Prosecution here take, and as against the organic 
enactments of the Presbyterian Church, the plea of 
" Usage " has been advanced, and may yet be advanced in 
the present case. I am aware the argument for non-en- 
forcement of denominational law, and for the grant of 
liberty according to the " Spirit of the Age " is crowned 
with the argument of " Usage " in reference to the permis- 
sion given some ministers, under rare circumstances, to be 
installed as pastor over orthodox Congregational Churches. 
Mr. McCune has made that plea. Others have made that 
plea. I deem it, therefore, a part of my duty to meet that 
argument, and vindicate the Presbyterian Church against 
its influence and effect wherever made. Especially do I 
deem it loyalty to our " Reunion " that, here and now, it 
should be met. It has assumed a latitude it never dared 
to measure any time before. I regard the use of that argu- 
ment of usage as fatal to the peace, unity, and purity of 
our church. It is a dangerous plea to make. If usage 
consecrates the right of Mr. McCune to do as he has done, 
" usage " will consecrate the ruin of the Presbyterian 
Church. I concede that a continuous custom, or practice, 
grown up under an express law, is the best exposition of 
that law, for the law itself is the basis on which the usage 
rests. The usage has prescription to support it. I concede 
also, that where there is no law, usage may itself grow "to 
a general law which it might be mischievous to abate. But 
neither of these cases is the case before us. JSTot the first, 
for the Presbyterian Church has no law, no prescription 
upon any such usage as that Mr. McCune claims is founded. 
There is no statute for such a thing to rest upon. Not the 
second, for we have express laws of our denomination 
forbidding the very things that Mr. McCune has done, 
whether as to propagating his Organic Union views, 
practicing an independent polity, organizing a Church, 



[165] 



accepting a call, or being re-examined and installed by an 
undelegated or other Council, without permission of 
his Presbytery. Moreover, before usage may be pleaded, 
where no law exists, it must be shown to be established 
well by time, without interruption, peaceably enjoyed, and 
consistent with the public good. But all these tests of 
usage are violated here. The practice claimed by Mr. Mc- 
Cune never was established by time ; it never has been un- 
interrupted; it never was peaceably enjoyed; it never con- 
duced to the peace and good of the Presbyterian Church. 
Apart from theLinwood and Mt. Lookout accompaniments, 
it began about the beginning of the present century, and 
was a compromise even with Congregationalism, it has been 
severely interrupted, it was never peaceably enjoyed, though 
acquiesced in for a period, and it produced only " harm" ta 
the Presbyterian Church. With the Linwood and Mt. 
Lookout accompaniments, I think it may safely be said, it 
never was known in all the history of the Church on earth. 
It has no prescription. May it never become a precedent ! 
The usage as to Congregational Churches, our allowing 
Presbyterian ministers to receive their call and be installed, 
never dispensed with jurisdiction over such ministers, nor 
allowed them to receive such call or be installed, but by 
permission of the Presbytery. The usage rested on the 
Plan of Union of 1801. It was a bad prescription, and was 
abrogated, as unconstitutional from the beginning, in 1838. 
All the force, and all the right, the usage had, in reference 
to Congregational Churches, and guaranteed by the Union 
plan of 1801, fell, when it fell in 1838. If the usage did 
once exist, it yet came from a prescription now gone. It 
grew out of that plan. Our Reunion has called us back 
again to the " old paths," the "good old ways" antecedent 
to the time of those sad controversies of which that bad 
prescription was the seed. We are cautioned not to make 
any " needless or offensive" reference to the past, much 
more not to revive the practices that gave the Church her 
trouble. "It is the duty of all our Church judicatories,, 
ministers and people of the united Church," say our Con- 
current Resolutions, " to avoid all needless and offensive re- 



[166] 



ference to the causes that divided us; and, in order to avoid 
the revival of past issues, by the continuance of any usage in 
in either branch of the Church that has grown out of former 
■conflicts, it is earnestly recommended to the lower judica- 
tories that they conform their practice in relation to all such 
usages, so far as is consistent with their convictions of 
duty, to the general custom of the Church prior to the con- 
troversies that resulted in the separation." Digest, p. 93. 
Those controversies began soon after the plan of 1801. 
Again, where any " usage " is thus related to the conflicts 
of the past, a " usage asserted and defended by some, denied 
-and discarded by others," its 66 abolition " is demanded. And 
this Mr. McCune and this Presbytery have voted for. I 
submit, Moderator, that by the Terms of our Reunion, no 
man is entitled to plead Congregational " usage/' and ap- 
peal to some few yet existing instances of it, as shown by 
our Assembly Minutes, much less under the Oberlin u iTew 
Departure." These are the remnants of a " usage " against 
which the assembly has advised our ministers and all our 
courts. Least of all can these cases be pleaded as an argu- 
ment for Mr. McCune' s course at Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 
The enterprise of Mr. McCune and his whole course herein 
is without prescription, and without a shadow of defense 
from " usage " of any kind whatever in our Body as to 
Congregational Churches. It is a pure inception, an in- 
novation, a " new thing under the sun," a " sore evil " to 
the Church of Christ. It is without a parallel. It rests its 
claim on no analogy that can be cited, as allowed, in the 
whole history of the Presbyterian Church. It is a new de- 
velopment of the times. To lean for support on the 
" usage " of the past is to lean on a tree with its roots cut 
away, upon a custom that produced disaster and disruption. 
It is proposed that we fraternize with this Organic Union 
movement by the recognition of this enterprise, and by the 
plea that "usage" justifies the toleration, by this Pres- 
bytery, of the double, contradictory, anomalous, and anti- 
pro-denominational subscription and allegiance of its pastor. 
.Moderator and Brethren, it is our bounden duty, not merely 
as Presbyterians, but as Christian ministers and elders, to 



[167] 



resist this bad inception. Soon, indeed, if not already, as 
Mr. McCune suggests, it may be " too late!" 

" Principiis obsta ; sero medicina paratur." The course of 
Mr. McCune herein is utterly at war with all his ordination 
vows and the true deportment of all ministers. How can 
the Presbyterian Church allow a minister to have jurisdic- 
tion over all her churches, when even the inspection of the 
records of his own is formally denied ? How permit one 
minister to ignore, in theory and in practice, our whole 
Form of Government and Book of Discipline, and even the 
fundamental doctrines of our system, and publicly teach 
contrary to the same? By what right send such a minister 
to our General Assembly " which represents in one body all 
the particular churches of this denomination " (Digest, p. 
200), when he represents a church not of " this denomina- 
tion?" Is it ingenuous to plead the " usage " of the past, 
now interdicted, for an enterprise that rests on no prescrip- 
tion ; when such past usage had prescription and permis- 
sion both ? To plead that argument is vain. What has no 
prescription is an innovation. 

The argument of usage may be, in these times, the ruin 
of our peace and unity and purity. It is another name for 
the non-enforcement of our Standards. It is the destruction 
of our true liberties and rights. Charles I pleaded usage 
for the exaction of money from his subjects. We know 
what came of that. Henry VIII did the same thing. We 
know what came of that. Usage made Magna Charta a 
dead letter, just as usage may make our Presbyterian Con- 
stitution here the same. Were Hampden, Cromwell, and 
Sydney wrong? Once the Presbyterian Church allowed 
corresponding members to deliberate and vote in our Courts. 
We know what came of that. Under the usage, grounded 
in the plan of 1801, a host of troubles came. It should be 
enough for us to know, when pleading usage, that no usage 
can be pleaded against a positive Constitution to the con* 
trary. Nothing against the church's peace and welfare 
may be tolerated. " Contra Bempublicam, priveligium non 
valet." And where a bad practice arises, it must be 
abolished. What in the beginning was vicious, does not 



[168] 



become valid by lapse of time. So is the maxim of com- 
mon law as true, more true for the Church than for the 
State. Whatever is contrary to law may not be done by 
circumvention. No Court may decide against the Consti- 
tution. A bad usage never avails to bar the valid plea of 
a constitutional objection, or the welfare of the Church. We 
have no " Toleration Act" for Mr. McCune, no " Custom of 
the King" to plead, no "usage." To make usage, where 
it is a violation of law, an argument for its own continu- 
ance, is to make transgression its own defense. Brethren, 
let us stop this plea. " Stand in the ways and see and ask 
for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, 
and ye shall find rest to your souls." " Sure I am," says 
Lord Bacon, " that Stare decisis is a good principle, and an- 
tiquity hath its wisdom. Stare super vias antiquas, stand 
upon the old ways. The very word and style of Reforma- 
tion used by our Savior, ab initio non fuit sic, was applied 
to Church matters, and those of the highest nature." It 
will be our life, and strength, and peace, and unity, and pu- 
rity, and historic glory, in future as in past, if we observe 
to do what our ordination vows bind us to do, not as op- 
pressed, but as free, loyal, and loving Presbyterians. 



And so may it please the Court ! The prosecution pre- 
sent to you these charges and this argument, asking of the 
Court, in the name of the Presbyterian Church, a definitive 
judgment upon the allegations here made, and if regarded 
as proved, a definitive condemnation of those doctrines 
and that course, which are not only at war with the stand- 
ards of the Presbyterian Church, but which — the one if 
generally accepted, the other if generally allowed — would 
be totally subversive of her constitution and of her very 
existence as a distinctive denomination. The prosecution 
ask, in the name of the Church, still more, — a definitive 
arrest of the propagation of such errors, and a positive in- 
junction that they shall not be taught by any minister 
under our jurisdiction, nor allowed to be taught in any of 



[169] 



our churches. For what further action may be necessary 
in view of the present relations of Mr. McCune to the 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church, and to the General 
Association of "Union Christian Churches" of which he 
is an active member, the Prosecution refer the Court to the 
law of our denomination, already so abundantly cited. 

The hour is a momentous one for the Presbyterian 
Church, if the interest taken abroad in this case is any 
sign, and if the omens in the church at large are fraught 
with any lesson ! Never before in all our history has there 
been such a disposition to put " Union before Truth" as 
there is to-day. Who knows not that times of Union are 
times of peril to the Truth of Christ? And what loyal 
minister of the Presbyterian Church is ignorant that the 
truth of Christ and the order of the heavenly house may 
not be sacrificed for any external fellowship, however great, 
nor for any considerations of expediency or economy? It 
is time the appeal to " conscience," " liberty," " private 
judgment," " usage," all perverted as it is, were hushed. 
Conscience has no rights against conscience. Liberty 
under law has no rights of disobedience to the law itself. 
Yows of allegiance to the Presbyterian Church have no 
rights of reservation, none of revolution, against the en- 
forcement of her doctrine and her order. Truth in the 
inward parts, sincerity adopting and approving her stand- 
ards as " agreeable to the word of God," has no right to 
traduce those standards as "sectarian." Private judgment 
has no rights of public transgression. Usage has no rights 
against the welfare of the church. Allow such license to 
go on " unquestioned," let Presbyterian ministers indulge 
it everywhere, and the muse of history, now in this Court, 
will write the epitaph " Fuit Ecclesia JPresbyteriana" over 
the grave of the Presbyterian Church before this genera- 
tion shall have passed away ! We know the progress of 
error, and the arts she practices to twine herself around the 
human understanding. " Toleration" first, and only tolera- 
tion, is all she asks. Grown to greatness, she next de- 
mands "Equality of Rights" with the Truth itself, and then 
the contest comes. Last of all, " Supremacy," the crown 



[170] 



upon her head, and Truth dethroned ! Allow your minis- 
ters and elders to pursue the course of Mr. McCune, and 
claim subscription to your standards as a valid plea for 
resting on your roll, then measure, if you can, the march 
of error! So the Rationalistic Lutherans of Germany all 
signed the Augsburg Confession. So the Socinians of 
Geneva, after Calvin's day, all signed the Calvinistic Sym- 
bols. So the subscribers to the Heidleberg Catechism be- 
came Pantheists, Deists, and Unitarians. So Broad Church 
Anglicans subscribe the thirty-nine articles. So some Mo- 
hammedans subscribe the Nicene Creed. So Mr. McCune 
subscribes the standards and preaches the doctrines of Or- 
ganic Union, invoking the cry of " toleration" in his own 
favor and " sectarianism" against his own denomination. 
Moderator, sectarianism and ecclesiastical denominations 
are not synonymous and identical terms. Presbyterianism 
is not " sectarianism.''' It is a Divine Testimony. The 
Presbyterian Church is not a " sect." It is a Divine Foun- 
dation. And well may it stand, if the best assaults of all 
its foes are found to be but misinterpretations of the Word 
of God, and vain theories spun from their own imagina- 
tions. But a worse than Galatian bewitchment has touched 
I know not how many ministers of Christ, I know not how 
many true Christians. " Union before Truth" is the popular 
accent of the day. The music goes sounding through all 
our Paradise. " Down with dogmatism" is the cry. It 
means unquestioned toleration. It is not hard to tell its 
source. If you will but follow Ithuriel and Zephon in their 
search, you shall soon find the lurking " spirit of the age," 
spotted with indifference to the Truth of God, whispering 
through Organic Union, 

" Squat like a toad, at the church's ear, 
Assaying by its cunning art to reach 
The organs of her fancy, and with them forge 
Illusions as it lists, phantasms and dreams, 
Vain hopes, vain aims, inordinate desires, 
Blown up with high conceits engendering pride." * 

God speed the day when the Presbyterian Church again,, 
as of old, shall enforce her constitution and her laws! God 



[171] 



speed the day when all her ministers shall be loyal and 
true — priests whose " lips shall keep knowledge, and the 
people learn the law at their mouth," for they are "mes- 
sengers of the Lord of hosts ;" when, strong in the confi- 
dence of sound doctrine and a heavenly order, they shall 
be ready to confront with apostolic zeal those " whose 
mouths must be stopped," who " subvert whole houses, 
teaching things which they ought not;" when they shall 
" give heed to themselves and the doctrine, and continue 
in it, knowing that in doing this they shall "save both 
themselves and them that hear them." Such a ministry 
the Presbyterian Church has enjoyed before, in the days of 
her martyr-witness for the truth. May the genius of those 
hours return ! when all shall " stand fast in one spirit, with 
one mind, striving for the faith of the gospel ;" men "like- 
minded," " earnestly contending for the faith once delivered 
to the saints," — the truth of Christ, " the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth." And G-od speed the day, when, 
once more, the Presbyterian Church, in the " Reunion," 
shall not let down her colors from the mast, nor give her 
ministers the right to raise some tattered remnant of her 
faith upon the top of some new mountain ; but lifting high 
her symbol to the gallant, unfurling it on every temple 
spire and on every court, to fioat in every breeze, shall rally 
round her own time-honored, battle-worn, and broad blue 
banner, emblem of the faith, believed in, loved, and felt 
through all her blood — the ensign of her glory and her 
strength ! 



[ 172] 



THE FINAL MINUTE OF THE PRESBYTERY. 

The Committee to whom was referred the matter of pre- 
paring a minute for the adoption of the Presbytery in the 
case in which Rev. W. C. McCune was the defendant, have 
not thought it proper to make prominent in the same their 
individual or even collective views. They have deemed it 
their simple duty, by a faithful and patient analysis of the 
different votes, and by an earnest endeavor to recall the 
differing opinions expressed, to make up a judgment and 
finding which should fairly and fully represent the mind of 
the Court. With this explanation of their conception of 
the task assigned them, the Committee beg leave to submit 
the following minute, viz : 

The Presbytery has given patient attention to the whole 
matter. The trial lasted thirteen days. Both the Com- 
mittee of Prosecution and the accused had the amplest op- 
portunity to present their testimony and to comment on the 
same. 

No rules of procedure were adopted beyond what were 
necessary to the proper and full investigation of the case. 

The general charge of disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
Church was presented in two specific charges, the first hav- 
ing reference to the defendant's opinions, and the second to 
his acts. 

On both of these charges the defendant was acquitted by 
the decisive vote of 29 to 8, and in the judgment of this 
Court his character and standing as a Presbyterian minis- 
ter are uni in peached. He also carries away from this pain- 
ful traverse of his case our commendation of him as a 
faithful and self-denying minister of Jesus Christ, as well 
as their respect for his manly and Christian demeanor 
throughout the trial. 

The general offense of disloyalty was regarded €is not 
substantiated by the proof adduced under the various speci- 
fications. The reasons for this judgment of the Court in 



[173] 



detail are as follows, looking first to the several items of the 
first charge : 

Although these charges were presented by common fame, 
in the name of the Presbytery, it was decided by a vote of 
32 to 5, with one to sustain in part,'that the eleventh speci- 
fication, affirming the existence of such common fame, had 
not been proved by the evidence adduced by the Prose- 
cuting Committee. The basis of the action was thus, after 
careful hearing of the evidence, invalidated in the judgment 
of the Presbytery itself. 

The tenth specification, as to the length of time, affirm- 
ing that the defendant had persisted for many years in ad- 
vocating his opinions, was not sustained, by a vote of 17 to 
12, with 9 in part, chiefly for the reason that the statute of 
limitation forbids the instituting of process in the case of 
any person for such protracted period, " unless it (the crime) 
shall have recently become flagrant." 

Of the nine specifications relating to the opinions of the 
accused, supposed to be at variance with our doctrinal 
standards, six were declared by decisive majorities to be 
not sustained. The first specification, affirming what the 
defendant taught respecting the " Divine Law of Organi- 
zation of the Christian Church," was not sustained, by a 
vote of 25 to 8, with 4 in part. The second specification, 
"As to the essential sinfulness of the Presbyterian and all 
other existing evangelical denominations, as such," was not 
sustained, by a vote of 25 to 4, with 8 in part. The third 
specifi cation, "As to the sinfulness of framing and requiring 
assent to human creeds," was not sustained by a vote of 28 
to 5, with 5 in part. The fourth specification, asserting 
that the defendant taught that Presbyterian ministers might 
change old views of doctrine and polity, and still remain in 
the Presbytery, was not sustained, by a vote of 31 to 4, 
with 3 in part. The fifth specification, as to the defend- 
ant's alleged opinion that Presbyterian and other evangeli- 
cal ministers might belong to two different denominations 
at once, was not sustained, by a vote of 32 to 4, with 2 in 
part. The ninth specification, asserting that the defendant 



[174] 



taught what was heretical as to the subject of saving faith, 
was not sustained, by a vote of 29 to 4, with 5 in part. 

In the investigation of the evidence as to these specifi- 
cations, it became apparent that the opinions of the de- 
fendant had been misapprehended, and that he did not 
hold these doctrines, as alleged. Some of the specifications 
were inferential, such as the idea of a plurality of official 
membership, and as to the right to remain within a de- 
nomination while pursuing courses intended to subvert it. 
On these the Presbytery was precluded from passing con- 
demnation by the instruction of the General Assembly, in 
the Craighead case, 1824. (Digest 224.) The specification 
in regard to saving faith was thrown aside in view of the 
frank disavowals of the defendant (see same case, Digest, 
224), and of the confidence felt by nearly all in his personal 
loyalty to the doctrine of our Church, as set forth in the 
Confession of Faith, chapter xiv. While the proofs under 
these above-named specifications disclose some things in 
language and expression which are to be deprecated, and 
some things which the Presbytery does not approve, there 
is not to be found in them, in the judgment of the Court, 
any support for the charge of disloyalty. 

In reference to three of the nine specifications, the large 
majority of the Presbytery were agreed to sustain, or to 
sustain in part. The vote on the sixth specification, " As 
to the terms of ministerial fellowship," was to sustain, 17; 
in part, 17, and not to sustain, 4. The seventh specification, 
charging a denial of " Infant Church Membership," was 
sustained by the following vote : to sustain, 20 ; in part, 10, 
and not to sustain, 8. The eighth specification, having ref- 
erence to "the admission of unbaptized persons to church 
membership," was also sustained, the vote being, to sustain, 
23; in part, 10, and not to sustain, 5. 

The teachings of the defendant on these topics are ap- 
parently corollaries of his theory of Organic Union, or the 
combination of all believers in one Church, without refer- 
ence to differences in doctrine, order or worship. The 
Presbytery does not regard this theory as either established 
by the Scriptures or as warranted by the doctrine of our 



[175] 



Confession respecting the communion of saints. (Chap- 
ter 26.) 

In the judgment of the Presbytery, the defendant has 
been led by his theory into extreme positions on the three 
special topics named. And while the establishing of these 
three specifications is not of itself sufficient to prove the 
charges of disloyalty, the Presbytery in sustaining these 
specifications does express a decisive judgment adverse to 
the opinions thus maintained. We believe that it would 
be dangerous to recognize exceptions to the rule that per- 
sons who will not submit to so plain and Scriptural a sac- 
rament as baptism should not be admitted into the visible 
Church. We believe that, whatever difficulties may arise 
from the ambiguity of the term " membership," as applied 
to infants, there is a just and precious relation or connec- 
tion established by the covenant in the Christian family as 
a divine institution, and certified by baptism, which ought 
never to be ignored or lightly regarded by the ministers of 
our Church. We hold also to the entire Scriptural legiti- 
macy of separate denominations, such as our own, in which 
peculiarities of doctrine as well as the general evangelical 
doctrine, and also peculiarities of order or modes of wor- 
ship, may be recognized and maintained without impairing 
the true spiritual unity of the whole Church of Christ. We 
consequently regard the limitation of ministerial fellow- 
ship, so far as organization is concerned, as being entirely 
proper, and as being eminently desirable. The views of 
the defendant on these points are not such as the Presby- 
tery can approve. 

In view of the teaching of our Confession of Faith as to 
the Communion of Saints and the Sacraments, we regard 
the expression of such views by the defendant as are set 
forth in these three specifications as calculated to excite 
anxiety and distrust in the minds of Christian brethren^ 
and as furnishing ground for earnest caution against all 
teaching which tends to induce conflict and division either 
within our own circle or in the Church at large, and for 
solemn counsel to wait more patiently upon the leadings of 



[176] 



Divine Providence as to any more visible union of the 
people of God. 

The second charge is one of disloyalty in conduct, and 
is made to rest upon two specifications, which may be 
briefly summarized as (1) confederating with others in ad- 
vocating and promoting " the new anti-denominational 
association of Independent 6 Union Christian Churches of 
America/" and (2) actively co-operating in organizing the 
Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church. 

The Presbytery, by a vote of 25 to 6, with 7 in part, did 
not sustain the first specification. The court, as is thus 
manifest, failed to see any adequate proof of unfaithfulness 
to his own Church in the labors and fellowship of the de- 
fendant, with various other parties, in publishing papers, 
holding conventions, etc., in the interest of Christian union. 
The question whether such affiliations and co-operations 
were wise is very different from the question whether en- 
gaging in them is evidence of a spirit of disloyalty. Even 
though such a course be not approved, it nevertheless lies 
in the category of acts where individual liberty is' allowed 
and ecclesiastical authority should not be invoked. It has 
not been shown that the defendant intended to break down 
the denomination to which he had honestly declared his 
allegiance; or that he had entered consciously on an enter- 
prise the ultimate issue of which was the revolutionary sub- 
version of all existing sects. 

The second specification (relating to the course of the 
defendant in connection with the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
Church, his influence in its organization, and his installation 
as pastor of the same), received the following vote, viz. : 
To sustain, 7 ; not to sustain, 12 ; and to sustain in part, 18. 
The judgment of the Presbytery on this second point, 
therefore, is less decisively favorable to the defendant than 
in reference to the first. It is in evidence that the defend- 
ant was not the originator of this church, but, on the con- 
trary, that such organization had been contemplated some 
time before he came to the field. It is clear also that the 
original intention was to provide for the religious wants of 
a growing community, where as yet no one denomination 



[177] 



was strong enough to maintain the ordinances of the GospeL 
The enterprise had, in our judgment, no connection what- 
ever, at least in its earlier stages, with what is called the 
Christian Union movement. Nor is there any clear evi- 
dence that the defendant intended to pervert or divert it 
into any anti-denominational use, or to make it the first 
step in a process of destruction of existing sects. In pub- 
lishing the Basis of Fellowship, and accompanying papers, 
preceding the call of the Council, he did not intend to 
make the church responsible, nor did the church ever in- 
tend to become responsible for his peculiar opinions therein 
contained. 

In regard to the defendant's acceptance of and entrance 
on the pastoral office in this church without the consent of 
the Presbytery, we are constrained to say that such a course 
can not be regarded in any other light than as an irregu- 
larity. He ought to have consulted with and obtained the 
consent of the Presbytery. The proper course for all mem- 
bers of the Presbytery who resign or accept pastoral 
charges, or who leave the ministry for any other profession, 
such as teaching or editing, or who practically devote 
themselves to any form of secular employment, should be 
obviously to obtain permission from that body to which 
primarily their official allegiance is due. This is a proper 
part of that submission to our brethren in the Lord which 
we have individually promised. It is an accountability to 
which every loyal minister will, on consideration, cheer- 
fully submit himself, and while we regret the departure in 
this instance from a rule, the propriety of which is so obvi- 
ous, we are obliged to temper our judgment with mercy in 
view of the fact that the rule has not heretofore been 
strictly enforced. Our own negligence so far condones the 
offense as to render it unjust in us to inflict censure on ac- 
count of it in the case before us. 

The second charge, therefore, of disloyalty in conduct, 
the Presbytery, in like manner as with the first, by the em- 
phatic vote of 29 to 8, regards as not sustained ; while the 
vote on the second specification of the same shows no dis- 
position to approve the irregularities therein mentioned. 



[178] 



And, neither charge being sustained, the defendant stands 
acquitted at our bar, and is still commended to the churches 
as a brother minister of Jesus Christ, faithful and beloved. 

In recording thus at length our judgment on all the 
points specified in the charges, the Presbytery has earnestly 
and honestly sought to know the truth and to do the right. 
And with the conviction that this, our finding, is, in every 
substantial particular, according to justice, both to the 
Church and to the defendant, we may express the hope 
and earnest wish that it will also be promotive of peace, 
and that the harmony of the Church at large may not be 
further disturbed by the appearance of this case in any 
form before the higher courts. 

Respectfully submitted, 

O. A. Hills, 
J. P. E. Kumler, 
J. E. Wright, 
Frederick Dallas, 
John Kennett, 

Committee. 



As will be seen from the above minute, the Presbytery 
decided, 

1. That there was no proof adduced, under any or all the 
Specifications, to show disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church, 
nor contravention of ordination vows, nor any impairing of 
our system of doctrine, nor any war upon the Standards, 
nor any Common Fame. 

2. That Specification X, under Charge I, was not sus- 
tained, whereas it was sustained by a vote of 21 to 17. 

3. That the Statute of Limitation could be applied to bar 
process against a continuous offense of ten years. 

4. That the proofs under the Specifications " not sus- 
tained" were no competent proofs at all. 

5. That the Prosecution " misapprehended " the opinions 
of Mr. McCune. 

6. That some of the Specifications were " inferential," 
whereas there is not one such in all of them. 



[179] 



7. That the " Craighead " rule operates to " not sustain " 
the fact of proven language, whereas the Assembly used it 
only in mitigation of judgment upon the language proved, 
giving the defendant the benefit of his claimed interpreta- 
tion, if deemed to be not an evasion. 

8. That in all Mr. McCune has taught, there are only a 
few expressions to be deprecated, but nothing whatever to 
show any disloyalty. 

9. That the Specifications which they did sustain are 
"corollaries" of " his theory of Organic Union," and at 
the same time voted that there was no proof to show that 
he held any such theory, and that there was no Common 
Fame about it. And yet again, that he did hold such a 
theory, while they voted down the Specifications which as- 
sert that he held it. And still, again, that his theory and 
corollaries merit a "decisive, adverse judgment" because 
they are " dangerous," and are " not such as Presbytery can 
approve," being " calculated to excite anxiety and distrust," 
tending "to induce conflict and division," and deserving 
" solemn counsel," and yet are no evidence of any disloy- 
alty, and were allowed to pass without even an admonition. 

10. That there is no evidence to prove that Mr. McCune 
was the originator of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
in the shape it took, as charged in the Specifications, and 
that in all his course herein he was guilty of only a little 
pardonable irregularity. 

11. That he is a faithful, sound, loyal, unimpeached Pres- 
byterian minister, worthy of commendation, and that the 
Presbytery's "own negligence" of its duty, for years past, 
makes it improper for it to censure anything he has said or 
done, and this it declares to be a finding according to jus- 
tice, both to the Church and defendant, and promotive of 
peace. 



THE PROCESS, 



ESTIMON Y AND OPENING ARGUMENT 



OF THE PROSECUTION, 



VOTE AND FINAL MINUTE, 

IN THE 

JUDICIAL TRIAL OF REV. W. C. McCDNE 

BY 

THE PEESBYTERY OF CINCINNATI, 



FROM MARCH 5 TO MARCH 27, 1877- 



CINCINNATI: 
ROBERT CLARKE & CO., PRINTERS. 



1877. 



Editor of 

from ROBERT CLARKE & CO. 

Publishers, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

j^OR Sale by 
Price, $ £,J 

ffit* Please send paper containing notice to ROBERT CLARKE & CO. 



i 



4» 



5> V "^MS* A**. 



' gaSa jlBf! 



?P^, 



V a4? -•^ 



*. ■ 



4 o A • 



« 6 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 



• .lk y "*£* ** ^^HB(^y ° c^ 1 ^QfV ° ^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
h ^ ^ **^fiRSr** «5* °* Treatment Date: June 2006 



4^"- e^lf * ^ * # " o^°*» k ' * * ^^o. PreservationTechnologies 

^ % *«^^V?^y«^* ^3»> C V&'tff?/!/^ ^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^ ^fi iT r ~Tr 111 Thomson Park Drive 



Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724) 779-2111 



^0* 






°* ••••• A 



\ V 




V^V v^-> 




,4< 







% •••• 





v^ 1 




4** ; 

<. •'7'. 

p. 






M A R 82 

N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



4< 



